Slashdot Mirror
Harlan Ellison vs. AOL Judgment Reversed
Robotech_Master writes "An appeals court has issued a decision reversing the summary judgment of a lower court that AOL qualified as a "safe harbor" under the DMCA. At issue is the fact that Ellison sent his notification of copyright violation to an email address at AOL, which AOL never received because the abuse submission address had been changed." The complete decision is available here as a PDF file; read below for an excerpt.
"AOL changed its contact e-mail address from "copyright@aol.com" to "aolcopyright@aol.com" in the fall of 1999, but waited until April 2000 to register the change with the U.S. Copyright Office. Moreover, AOL failed to configure the old e-mail address so that it would either forward messages to the new address or return new messages to their senders. In the meantime, complaints such as Ellison's went unheeded, and complainants were not notified that their messages had not been delivered. Furthermore, there is evidence in the record suggesting that a phone call from AOL subscriber John J. Miller to AOL should have put AOL on notice of the infringing activity on the particular USENET group at issue in this case, "alt.binaries.e-book." Miller contacted AOL to report the existence of unauthorized copies of works by various authors. Because there is evidence indicating that AOL changed its e-mail address in an unreasonable manner and that AOL should have been on notice of infringing activity we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could find that AOL had reason to know of potentially infringing activity occurring within its USENET network."
Looks like actual notice to me.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Slashlaw: The Finest in IANAL Speculation
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
As far as I know Usenet is a global network. AOL cannot possibly control what is posted on there, unless they stop carrying that newsgroup entirely.
In order to get protection from being liable for the actions of users under the DMCA, any ISP must register contact information, and then inform their user that they either have to pull the allegedly offending content or the ISP will pull it for them.
Basically, the accusation is that AOL stopped checking the address they had on file at the copyright office, and therefore has lost its protections in any case that was submitted to that address during the unchecked timeframe.
I would use that high-speed technology to send The American Choppers kid (you know the geeky one) back in time to kill Harlan Ellison. But in an ironic twist he will fall in love with him and instead be forced to let him die in a freak truck accident.
I've never heard nor seen USENET refered to as a "peer to peer" file sharing network.
Or a hyphenation of "news-group".
-- benton.
Why doesn't AOL just settle with Ellison, maybe offer him like 5,000 free hours instead of the normal 2,500?
From the submission blurb: Furthermore, there is evidence in the record suggesting that a phone call from AOL subscriber John J. Miller to AOL should have put AOL on notice of the infringing activity on the particular USENET group at issue in this case, "alt.binaries.e-book."
GPL Deconstructed
How about this: Harlan Ellison Can Sue AOL Under DMCA
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Do you think AOL is an ISP?
Get real!
They are a CD-Company, always sending out these so called AOL-CDs.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Skimming the papers, it sounds like email is the legally acceptable way of contacting an ISP about a copyright issue... which seems kind of surprising. I mean, when you sue someone, they generally have to be notified either by certified mail or in person. If the U.S. Postal Service can't be trusted to deliver a supena, is it reasonable to trust email with a takedown notice and punish the recipeient for not acting?
I have blog like everyone else
HARLAN ELLISON FIGHTS FOR CREATORS' RIGHTS
Re: Harlan Ellison v. Stephen Robertson, America Online, Inc., RemarQ Communities, Inc., Critical Path, Inc., Citizen 513, and Does 1-10, Federal District Court, Central District of California Civil Case No. 00-04321 FMC (RCx)
22 February 2001
FOR THE PAST TEN MONTHS MY ATTORNEY, M. CHRISTINE VALADA, AND I HAVE BEEN HIP-DEEP FIGHTING A LEGAL BATTLE, WHAT WE THINK IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT CASE:
TO PROTECT WRITERS' CREATIVE PROPERTIES.
WE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ABOVE PARTIES TO STOP THEM FROM POSTING MY WORKS ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT PERMISSION. THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. RAMPANT. OUT OF CONTROL. PANDEMIC.
AOL, REMARQ/CRITICAL PATH AND A HOST OF SELF-SERVING INDIVIDUALS SEEM TO THINK THAT THEY CAN ALLOW THE DISSEMINATION OF WRITERS' WORK ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, AND WITHOUT PAYMENT, UNDER THE BANNER OF "FAIR USE" OR THE IDIOT SLOGAN "INFORMATION MUST BE FREE." A WRITER'S WORK IS NOT INFORMATION: IT IS OUR CREATIVE PROPERTY, OUR LIVELIHOOD AND OUR FAMILIES' ANNUITY. WHY SHOULD ANY ARTIST, OF ANY KIND, CONTINUE CREATING NEW WORK, EKING OUT AN EXISTENCE IN PURSUIT OF A CAREER, FOLLOWING THE MUSE, WHEN LITTLE INTERNET THIEVES, RODENTS WITHOUT ETHIC OR UNDERSTANDING, STEAL AND STEAL AND STEAL, CONVENIENCING THEMSELVES AND "SCREW THE AUTHOR"? WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE DEATH OF THE PROFESSIONAL WRITER!
THIS IS NOT ONLY MY FIGHT, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHOSE WORK IS BEING PIRATED. HUNDREDS OF WRITERS' STORIES, ENTIRE BOOKS, THE WORK OF A LIFETIME, EVERYONE FROM ISAAC ASIMOV TO ROGER ZELAZNY: THEIR WORK HAS BEEN THROWN ONTO THE WEB BY THESE SMARTASS VANDALS WHO FIND IT AN IMPOSITION TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE GOODS. (BUT GAWD FORBID YOU TRY TO APPROPRIATE SOMETHING OF THEIRS...LISTEN TO 'EM SQUEAL!) THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE WILL AFFECT EVERY WRITER, EDITOR, PHOTOGRAPHER, ARTIST, MUSICIAN, POET, SCULPTOR, ACTOR, BOOK DESIGNER, PUBLISHER AND READER. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE ANARCHY OF IGNORANT THIEVES RIPPING OFF THOSE WHO LABOR FOR AN HONEST PAYDAY, BECAUSE THEY CONVENIENTLY HONOR THE LIE THAT EVERYTHING SHOULD BE THEIRS FOR THE TAKING.
LOOK, THIS IS YOUR FIGHT, TOO. IF THAT DEMENTED, SELF-SERVING MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD "INFORMATION" PREVAILS, AND EVERY ZERO-ETHIC TOT WHO WANTS EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING, WHO EXISTS IN A TIME WHERE E-COMMERCE HUSTLERS HAVE CONVINCED HIM/HER THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING PREVAILS, AND THEY ARE PERMITTED TO BELIEVE INFORMATION MUST BE FREE, WITH NO DIFFERENTIATION MADE BETWEEN RAW DATA AND THE CREATIVE PROPERTIES THAT PROVIDE ALL ARTISTS OF ANY KIND WITH AN ANNUITY, TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE CREATING NEW WORK, THEN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE EGREGIOUS INEVITABILITY OF NO ONE BUT AMATEURS GETTING THEIR WORK EXPOSED, WHILE THOSE WHO PRODUCE THE BULK OF ALL PROFESSIONAL-LEVEL ART FIND THEY CANNOT MAKE A DECENT LIVING.
DO NOT, FOR AN INSTANT, BUY INTO THE CULTURAL MYTHOLOGY THAT ALL ARTISTS ARE RICH. A FEW ARE, BUT MOST HAVE A HARD ROW TO HOE JUST SUBSISTING, HOLDING DOWN SECOND JOBS. MOST CREATORS PRACTICE THEIR ART BECAUSE THEY LOVE IT. IF IT WERE ONLY FOR THE BUCKS, THEY'D FARE BETTER AS DENTISTS, PLUMBERS, OR STEAM FITTERS. I'M FIGHTING FOR MYSELF, OF COURSE, BUT I'M ALSO DOING THIS FOR AVRAM DAVIDSON, WHO DIED BROKE; FOR ROGER ZELAZNY, WHO HAD TO WORK LIKE A DOG TILL THE DAY HE PITCHED OVER; AND FOR GERALD KERSH, WHOSE WORK WAS REPRINTED AND PIRATED IN SIXTY-FIVE COUNTRIES, WHILE HE HAD TO BORROW MONEY FROM FRIENDS TO FIGHT OFF THE CANCER. THIS IS YOUR FIGHT, TOO, GANG... AND NOW WE NEED YOUR HELP!
FOR THE PAST TEN MONTHS, MY ATTORNEY AND I HAVE FOUGHT THIS ALONE. ALTHOUGH WE ARE LOATH TO ASK, WE DO NOT HAVE THE ENDLESS DEEP POCKETS AND LAWYERS (14 AT THE LAST COUNT) THAT BENEFIT LARGE, ARROGANT CORPORATIONS. WE NOW NEED YOUR FINANCIAL HELP. AS TO THE MONEY BEING SPENT FOR THE DAVID-vs.-AOL GOLIATH LAWSUIT: YEAH, IT'S BEEN A BEAR. WE'RE ABOUT FORTY GRAND OUT OF POCKET, AND I'VE HAD TO SELL OFF A FEW PERSONAL POSSESSIONS AND MAGAZINE
-- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
Harlan Ellison's webpage:
From his NEWS page he's been on a campaign to Kick Internet Piracy.
According to this site, he's been fighting to prevent unauthorized posting of books/creating work on the intarweb without the authors consent...he believes AOL was partly responsible for his works being posted.
TO PROTECT WRITERS' CREATIVE PROPERTIES.
WE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ABOVE PARTIES TO STOP THEM FROM POSTING MY WORKS ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT PERMISSION. THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. RAMPANT. OUT OF CONTROL. PANDEMIC.
What I find surprising is that the lower court sided WITH AOL in what looks to be a one sided case in favor of Ellison. How can the lower court support the DMCA and still side with an evil corporation...are they that corrupt now? Do we need federal courts to provide simple justice to the common man now?
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Well, you can read up pretty easily by just googling on "Harlan Ellison copyright binaries". The short form is that Ellison discovered some of his works were being posted to an alt.binaries group and got ticked off in his own uniquely Ellisonian ranting, raving, frothing-at-the-mouth way. AOL requested and received a summary judgment because, "Hey, we're complying with the DMCA, therefore we're not liable."
This appeal decision is basically a higher court saying, "Oh, no you're not in full compliance...not only did you change the email address without telling anyone, someone had already told you about it when your email address worked. Let's send this through that lower court one more time."
IANAL and all that, of course.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The DMCA usually protects the mega-ISP from being responsible for the copyright violations of its users when it posts user-submitted content without screening it.
However, in order to qualify for that protection, the ISP has to register a contact point with the Copyright Office for all complaints to be sent, and must respond to all properly formatted requests sent to that contact point. It turns out this request to kill a Usenet posting from AOL's servers got lost because the copyright owner sent it to the registered address, but it turns out nobody was reading it since they had established a new address and didn't change their registration.
Therefore, the plantiff followed the law correctly, and AOL missed their chance to escape punishment by letting the time run out. Therefore, the safe harbor clause of the DMCA doesn't apply here, and AOL's going to be open to liablity here.
If an ISP has registered an e-mail address for a copyright contact, then an e-mail to that address that doesn't bounce counts as putting them on notice. And, as the other poster point out, there's also an ignored phone call that's also on the record.
AOL's got no hope of winning this case now.
What sort of precident does this set regarding USEnet?
It is possible that this judgment could some way be construed to hold all ISPs who give subscribers access to USEnet liable for copyright infringement?
The core problem is that the law allows for ridiculously high monetary penalties for violating a copyright. It seems to have been written to deter those who would make millions off bootlegged distribution. But it's being applied to people who violated copyright for no financial gain, and typically they weren't even aware they were sharing files (they only thought they were downloading for themselves).
I mean, imagine that a law was passed to penalize big businesses from dumping garbage in rivers, and it would cost them $100,000 per incident. But since "incident" was so vaguely defined, even dropping a gum wrapper off a canoe would mean you violated the law. So the gov't could sue you for $100,000, but they offer to settle for $3,000. A lawyer would cost you $3,000 anyway, so what the hell do you do? You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I think the best that could come out of this is that the law will be declared unconstitutional on the basis of "penalty doesn't fit the crime" (via cruel/unusual punishment). If the RIAA successfully prosecuted everyone they've contacted for one song each (over 2000 by my count so far?) and got the maximum penalty of $30,000, they would have been awarded $60,000,000 dollars! WTF? Were they really damaged $60,000,000 by the sharing of 2000 songs? Those 2,000 people could have been sharing the same single song to at least 10 people, so even if the RIAA lost $20 worth of missed-album purchases, they'd still be only be $40,000 in the hole. And that's not even considering that the record companies pocket just a percentage of each album's sticker price.
So I'm a pervert. Welcome to the Internet.
Phone them, email them, and contact them by registered mail. If your copyrighted works are online then you are losing income, and losing control over what you have the right to copy.
Granted, this can be abused easily if frivolous cases are constantly being brought to hand by a vexatious copyright holder (in the SCO mold who may not even own copyright). If you find your copyrighted work is being distributed illegally then it's your job to report it and get something done about it, sitting around after firing off an email and getting no response back indicates to me that you've been ignored or something's wrong with the system.
That being said, the fact that AOL has an email address registered with the copyright office and it's the wrong one does mean they're not making it easy via that one avenue of complaint. It doesn't affect the others, and picking up the phone makes sure you KNOW your complaint has been heard
Nude mac desktops
Completely and utterly false. This is the lie that Gene Roddenberry perpetuated, despite repeated pleas from Harlan to knock it the hell off. In Harlan's original script (see Ellison's "City On The Edge Of Forever", ISBN 1565049640, for his complete original teleplay) it was some no-name crewman who was dealing drugs. Gene changed it because we can't have people selling drugs in the perfect Trek universe (that would too....human.) Gene also made many other claims about Harlan's script that were false (e.g., it was too expensive to shoot.)
The complete story is in the previously mentioned book.
Neither of which should have any relevance to the case, of course. Nut case or not, good writer or not, he should have the same rights - no more, no less - as anyone else. Likewise, AOL should have the same rights as any other ISP.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I see the problem: His original email to AOL was probably ALLCAPS, so their spam-filter ate it.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Well since AOL apparently bothced their get-out-of-jail feee card I wonder if they are going to spend some of that cash pile of theirs to put a big dent in the DMCA to get of the hook.
Or if the AOL part will just bend over and take it so that the Time Warner part can keep their beloved DMCA intact.
/greger
And networks like it.
Harlan thinks of some turkey posts his book on USENET, he should then be able to attack all the zillions of people running a USENET server.
In his first round, he didn't do well, but he did have this one technicality -- AOL didn't handle their complaint address properly. And AOL getting dinged for this is fine. What we need to worry about is what the precedent means.
I mean, we've all had email go astray before, had servers go down, had mail drop on the floor. (Happens daily in the world of overactive spam filters.)
This might mean that some sites will decide there is too much legal risk in hosting content or usenet servers.
This part of the DMCA (little relation to the circumvention parts) was meant to make it easier to be an ISP, though at the cost of making them obey every takedown without requiring proof in some cases.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
While I think AOL is in the wrong here and should get punched in the face for their stupid actions, I find it hard to have sympathy for this Ellison guy. From the looks of it he found copies of his books on usenet. Does he really believe any significant number of people really wants to read books on a computer?
Paperbacks are still relatively cheap and available. I much prefer an actual printed book for $7 to having to scrunch up in front of a computer and strain my eyes for several hours to read a book. Sure I can read it on a teeny tiny PDA screen, but that sucks too. Books are probbably the _least_ susceptible to copyright violation, and have withstood the onslaught of copy machines for decades. Printed books are simply a better technology than electronic books, and probbably will be true for the forseeable future. While Ellison certainly has a right to complain about his works being posted on usenet, it seems more akin to some old man yelling at kids to "get off my lawn!".
AccountKiller
Love you Harley.
In any large (even medium) organisation, there is no guarantee that your complaint has been heard *by the right person*. That's like serving verbal notice on McDonalds by talking to the guy who gives you your fries.
Email leaves a permanent record. It's a much better medium than the phone for this sort of thing, and AOL are meant to be an internet company. Normally, I would say registered mail - but in this case, it appears that AOL registered this email specifically, in accordance with the law, and then changed it/neglected to check the old one.
The term is 'speculative fiction'.
I'm not familiar with this author. Can somebody tell me where I can download some of his works?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
1. Spam usenet under false identity. 2. Complain to copyright office. 3. Repeat 1 and 2 as often as necessary to get violations by major ISP's. 4. Sue. This only works if the ISP's are actually held responsible.
THEIR WORK HAS BEEN THROWN ONTO THE WEB BY THESE SMARTASS VANDALS WHO FIND IT AN IMPOSITION TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE GOODS
You know what? I was a teenager from a poor family. No father and an overworked mother going to school and holding down a full-time job at the same time bringing in barely minimum wage. No child-support. Living with her parents (our grandparents).
My main exposure to good books was online, through Project Gutenberg and various shared copies of e-books (fair use?). I had never even HEARD of Ellison until I read a copy of one of his books online.
I find spending $20 on a CD to be ludicrous and criminal. But you know what else I find criminal? Spending $20, $30, $40 or even $50 for a book of fiction. Christ, it's a couple hundred half-sheets of paper glued and bound into a set of thick cardboard covers for fucks's sake.
It's cheaper to get full platinum digital cable with every movie channel and HBO and all the channels your cable provider offers each month than to afford a book per week reading habit. Books are fucking criminally expensive and I can't blame people for sharing them.
People like Harlan not only want people to not share ebooks, but he doesn't want them to share real physical books either. They don't like libraries, they don't like used book stores. They don't like auctions for used books. They don't even want you to give a copy of a book to a friend when you're done reading it. They want every person who ever reads their work to have to pay for it all over again.
So excuse me if I don't cry you a fucking river, you pompous prick. And excuse the fuck out of me if I don't send you a check for your stupid "kick internet piracy" bullshit.
I heard that Ellison's original script had some low-level Enterprise crew doing drugs which leads to this time-travel incident, but the Hollywood suits took that out because the Enterprise crew are all Eagle Scouts and that would never happen in the Star Trek universe, so they rewrote the script to have McCoy accidently inject himself with a dangerous (legit) medication when the Enterprise hits a space-time "air pocket" (you know, one of those things that tosses everyone out of the seats that they are not belted into).
If you write scripts for Hollywood, having someone else do a rewrite for any of a number of pandering reasons is part of the landscape, and as far as making the Enterprise crew Boy Scouts who would never use drugs, whoever is supervising a series has to keep the episodes consistent with a vision or else it turns into Superman Comics where Superman keeps getting more powers in each episode that they have to hit some kind of reset button.
Getting back on topic, Ellison may not be a nut case, but he has a track record of pissing into the wind on matters of principle that turn out to be no-win situations.
I mean seriously, why would registering the change even be an issue? I deal with these types of things every year when staff comes and goes, or people have their names changed. I use this really neat feature called an "alias". See, with an "alias", I can have more than one address point to the same inbox. That way, during the transition, the e-mail user has plenty of time to inform senders of the change, all without losing any important messages.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
If computer geeks always have to add IANAL disclaimers when talking about the law, can we get lawyers to use I Know Jack About Computers disclaimers?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Or Harlan Ellison... er... the aging bloated fraud whose presence annoys intelligent tech savvy people, and who will savagely destroy anyone who he percieves as a threat to his ability perpetuate a tired business model...
Oh well... never mind...
Posting anonymously so Harlan won't be able to find me and kill me for DARING say anything against the great man.
Personally, I liked the idea of Kirk being willing to give up everything (including his oath and his integrity) for love, but Roddenberry didn't see it that way.
If you're gonna rip on someone, at least have the decency to get the facts first.
And, if you want to see how Hollywood really trashes someone's dreams, just ask Harlan to tell you about his TV show, Starlost. He was so upset at what they did to his work (they made an absolute mess of it), that he forced the producers to change his name on the credits to a pseudonym. They were almost as unhappy as Harlan about the whole thing.
This isn't a core problem with the law, it's a core problem with most people's understanding of the law and the way it's applied in our current legal setting. The law allows for something like $100k penalty or damages per copyright violation if you are found to have done that. However, there are a lot of fair use provisions that protect many uses of copyrighted material from falling under this, i.e. educational use, personal use, backups, etc. To prove you violated copyright in these cases, the court typically looks at four things, among them whether or not you profited from the violation and whether or not you knew you were doing it. I would honestly be very surprised to find that someone who downloaded a single copy of a story from an online site that claimed it was free to download would ever be found guilty of copyright violation and pay any penalties.
That being said, there was a recent disturbance in the force -- the DMCA. That makes it easier for copyright holders to cause problems for people, basically by putting many of the original fair use provisions on hold in a way that hasn't found its way through the courts yet. I'm hoping it will and it will be smashed down, but it hasn't happened yet. This doesn't change the basic premise of the law as I tried to describe it above.
It also put the copyright holders in a position they had never had before where they feel emboldened to go around rattling their swords. The RIAA can threaten people with very expensive lawsuits which, even if those people won (which they probably would given a fair shake), they would have to pay craploads of money defending themselves. Estimates of copyright case costs are somewhere around $200,000 per case. In most cases it's way cheaper just to pay the fine unless you can find some kind soul to protect you for the eventual win. The other downside is that the person sued for copyright violation doesn't come out ahead ever even if they win. At their most lucky, they could win court expenses, but that's not even a guarantee. So you won your case, but you're still out $200k. And that's how these big companies can pull it off. It has nothing to do with the law about copyright, which was never meant to be applied in these cases anyway.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Speculative
Function: adjective
1 : involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; also : theoretical rather than demonstrable
Fiction
Function: noun
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
Speculative Fiction
An invented story involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation.
Novels about alternate possible historical timelines are SF. "Normal" historical fiction is also somewhat speculative as the author speculates about dialogue internal and external, and attempts to relate the reader to the experience of the characters as envisioned by the author. Much fiction does indeed have speculative qualities, but certainly not all fiction. Star Wars novelizations, for example, are not even remotely SF, though they do apparently qualify as "sci-fi". Where the science comes in, I'm not sure, but hey.
SF is not a new term, and AFAIK, it was coined by authors who considered themselves writers of speculative fiction, and those authors have usually not wanted to be classified as "sci-fi", but insist on the term SF, or Speculative Fiction.
I'm with you. This "life + 70" shit is often justified as a way to "bequeath the business to one's family", but that's a load of crap. If a man is a carpenter and wants to leave his carpentry business to his son, he better teach the kid carpentry. The business of an author is writing, so it satnds to reason that the only way to pass on such a business is to teach your kids to write, no? The carpenters kid can't go around to houses his dad built and demand payment for his dad's work. Author's descendents shouldn't get to either. My favorite line from crackpot Ellison's ALL CAPS LETTER is the one where he claims "A WRITER'S WORK IS NOT INFORMATION: IT IS OUR CREATIVE PROPERTY, OUR LIVELIHOOD AND OUR FAMILIES' ANNUITY." Bullshit. If a writer wants to leave his family an annuity, he should have to set up a trust fund with money like the rest of us slobs.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"two people can't (reasonably) use the book's contents at the same time."
:).
They can when you rip all the pages out and pass them along a line of people
However, I don't see why simultaneity really matters: libraries can still rent out the same book to hundreds of people before it's replaced. Whether they're reading it serially or in parallel is irrelevant, they're still not buying the book.
Every book in a library 'costs' the author a sizable amount of money, unless they're so crap that no-one would want to read them: if libraries hadn't existed for centuries and were invented today, authors would be demanding laws against them.
that Harlan is doing this is for other authors. Big names like Harlan can make their own contracts. Lesser known authors have to settle for what the publishers will offer. This invariably includes "e-print" rights, the right for the publisher to reprint it in e-book form at some time in the future should they choose to (with or without more payment at that time). If they want that book contract, they sign.
The problem is that although the publisher has rights to reprint the e-book, the copyright holder is still responsible for the work, and for seeing it isn't published in like form outside the contract. If the author went to someone else and had it done, they'd be liable. However, even if someone else does it without permission, the copyright holder is still responsible and liable. They must act is a reasonable manner to reverse that. Failure to do so could result in loss of the contract, demands for repayment of the money already paid, sued for damages for inability of the publisher to now make money on the e-book, etc.
Very few authors have the knowledge guts, money, and ornery it takes to track down (or have tracked down) the people doing the pirating and take action. Harlan does. After seeing how hard it has been for someone like him with a team full of intellectual property and computer specialists to protect his own work, it becomes obvious how hard a lesser known (and paid) author would have to work, and what their chances of success would be.
Has any publisher ever tried this yet? No.
Are any ever likely to? Not anymore.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B