Harlan Ellison mad as hell, not going to take it any more.
March 8, 2001 8:56 AM Subscribe
posted by harmful at 9:22 AM on March 8, 2001
posted by Perigee at 9:27 AM on March 8, 2001
WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT IS THE DEATH OF THE PROFESSIONAL WRITER!
Oh goodie! Then we'll bring back the era of amateurs. You know, the ones that do it for the love of it. :) I can hardly wait.
Why do so many people think that the rest of the world carries the obligation to give them a job, and beyond that in *one specific profession*?
He sounds like a disgruntled buggy-whip manufacturer...
Don't worry, writers will still be paid, sheesh. Just not quite as often as they would like, really.
The key is that they'll have to make sure they get paid *up front* as much as they think their work is worth, because continuing residuals are probably not going to be coming. Their only hope is to hold their work hostage and see how much the world wants to pay them in order to release it for the first time.
It'll be a different world, but it'll be okay. He won't starve.
posted by beth at 9:42 AM on March 8, 2001
This web site has exceeded its traffic allowance.
Please try visiting this site again again at a lower traffic period, and/or contact the site maintainers and suggest that they increase their traffic threshold.
Forget the death of the professional writer. Who killed the professional IT dude at speculations.com?
posted by darren at 9:58 AM on March 8, 2001
posted by holgate at 10:35 AM on March 8, 2001
Information wants to be free, effort demands to be rewarded.
posted by Mick at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2001
posted by Postroad at 10:51 AM on March 8, 2001
posted by rcade at 10:55 AM on March 8, 2001
posted by lileks at 10:57 AM on March 8, 2001
I have to shake my head at folks that would post the entirety of someone else's creative work for the sole reason of getting it for free. I just don't get it. Every argument I've heard so far sounds like sheer rationalization springing from a sense of entitlement.
We are not entitled to someone else's creative output. If they offer it for free, that's fine--but it's also a good indicator that they aren't doing it for a living. The world is a better, richer place because people can make a living doing art. I want creative people to be able to support themselves on their art, because then we can see more of it. So if I love it, I pay.
posted by frykitty at 11:01 AM on March 8, 2001
b) unlike most sf authors, Ellison grew up on the mean streets of the big city: he made his first big splash by going undercover in a teenage gang (as a 20-year-old), he is not one to sit down and take some punk posting his stuff to newsgroups or gnutella;
c) he's really a very nice man in person, the gruffness is all a persona. He and Asimov -- the best of friends in real life -- had an act going where they'd yell at each other across convention halls "You hack! You haven't had an original idea in 20 years!" Very entertaining, although I suppose even more so if you didn't know in advance that it was meant as such.
d) Harlan shouldn't be so upset. He can always go work in TV again. We all know how much he loves working in TV. He's only quit permanently about twelve times.
posted by dhartung at 11:07 AM on March 8, 2001
It is eminently clear that copyright holders are going to need to use technology self-help to eradicate pirating, much the way DirectTV found a way to burn out the innards of DirectTV receivers using pirate cards to steal programming.
If even 5% of all files purporting to be copyrighted media were in fact viruses which fried your hard-drive upon launch or preview, this problem would go away faster than any lawsuit.
posted by MattD at 11:08 AM on March 8, 2001
That said, I think posting other people's work online is pretty sketchy, and refusing to take it down when asked is abominable.
posted by electro at 11:19 AM on March 8, 2001
posted by tranquileye at 11:20 AM on March 8, 2001
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:21 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by OneBallJay at 12:26 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by benjh at 1:53 PM on March 8, 2001
Ellison has made a career out of being an "angry young man" -- even when he stopped being young. And his credentials regarding getting pissed about others abusing property rights are just a bit shakey; his credibility suffers badly when you learn about all the stories he has which have been rotting for 25 years because he never got around to doing The Last Dangerous Visions. (An apallingly large number of the authors of the stories purchased for that unpublished volume have now died without ever seeing any royalties, and we are the poorer for not have had the opportunity to read them.) If Ellison really wanted to demonstrate his commitment to intellectual property, he'd get off his butt and publish the thing.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 2:25 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by john at 2:25 PM on March 8, 2001
I have to shake my head at folks who would hold the modern digital information system hostage to the limits of the old paper one for the sole reason of propping up the old way to get people paid. I just don't get it. It's 2001, and we have computers everywhere - why won't you let us use them?
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:41 PM on March 8, 2001
The fact that the last one will get you arrested doesn't prevent you from doing the rest.
I'm terribly sorry if basic ethics prevent your enjoyment of your computer. I'm having a blast with mine, thank you.
posted by frykitty at 2:48 PM on March 8, 2001
If there are ethics involved in this situation at all, they are certainly not basic. Copyright law is a practical solution to a practical problem and nothing more. The technology around which its idea was based had limitations which do not apply to computers. Copyright law is thus an awkward, uncomfortable fit to our modern situation - that is the reason we are discussing this at all.
What are we going to do about it? We can forge on as though nothing has changed, and live with the fact that we can't make the most of our new technology - or we can chuck the old system, come up with new practical solutions to our modern-day problems, and move on into a digital future where data copying is as fundamental an activity as reading.
It shouldn't be hard to figure out which one I prefer.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:20 PM on March 8, 2001
Surely we can use this wonderful technology so carpenters everywhere can continue to ply their trade exclusively, and not have to take a desk job while making chairs for free on the side.
posted by frykitty at 3:28 PM on March 8, 2001
Also, it is impossible to reproduce an exact duplicate of this chair with a minimal expenditure of energ ;)
The only way to prevent "data copying" would be to build checks into the hardware to prevent it. I certainly do not want that. This is the cause of the DeCSS dispute. If I buy some data, say, on a cd, I have the right to do whatever I want with it, say put it on my portable mp3 player.
I wouldn't buy any hardware that wouldn't allow me to do that. (Well, unless I could find plans to fix it on the net :))
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:34 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by Rebis at 3:36 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:39 PM on March 8, 2001
As a humanist, I guess I just expect better from people. That's why the very basic carpenter analogy. It isn't about what people can do, it's about being responsible in how we act toward other human beings.
I know, a hopeless battle.
posted by frykitty at 3:39 PM on March 8, 2001
Yeah, that's an excellent book; for anyone who wants to read a copy, I've scanned the entire thing and put it online here.
posted by webmutant at 3:59 PM on March 8, 2001
Well, sure, in same sense that all laws are practical solutions to a practial problem, said problem being that there are people who will do whatever they can get away with unless there are immediate and obvious personal consequences to their actions beyond a guilty conscience.
posted by kindall at 4:02 PM on March 8, 2001
The analogy does not hold up because the digital world offers us free instant copying of anything in a way so natural and complete that there is no parallel in the non-digital world. This is why the idea of copyright is awkward and strange when applied to digital data. It is not an issue of simple ethics.
Instant, reliable duplication and transmission of data is a task at which computers excel - you could say that is the whole point of their existence. It is something that cannot be done any other way. Expecting people to buy these data-duplicators and not use them is not expecting better of them, it's expecting the absurd.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:13 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by Postroad at 4:27 PM on March 8, 2001
On the other hand, I agree that it's kind of impossible to expect people *not* to trade information, even copyrighted information, with each other. If copyright violation becomes more widespread, for better or for worse, I think we're going to see more people who write/sing/paint only as a hobby, because they need a day job to make a living; I think some art that's expensive to produce (albums recorded with a lot of sound effects and post-production, for example) might disappear entirely unless ardent fans offered musicians money up-front to record them.
posted by Jeanne at 5:02 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by allaboutgeorge at 6:48 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by rodii at 7:34 PM on March 8, 2001
And why, when an artist tries to get compensated for their work, do people look down at him, make snide comments, and basically refuse to recognize them as artists?
I really am curious. Yeah, Harlan Ellison is a crank, but he's also written some of the only science fiction I think is worth reading. This goes back to the Napster issue. The whole digital replication thing. Really, why is it a bad thing for an artist to be concerned about unauthorized duplication of their work?
What's with this neo-Marxist bullshit purity that the instant someone starts worrying about money, everything about them is completely invalidated? Like the man said, many artists are not rich. They love their work, and they'll do it anyway, but damnit, how are they going to survive if no one pays them for their stories? Why should they bother if all the time and energy invested in their work isn't recognized?
Shakespeare wouldn't have written his plays if he didn't have a financial stake in the Globe Theater. Michaelangelo wouldn't have painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for free.
The notion that money is automatically a corrupting or tainting force is immature. Money is a motivation. It's a commonly agreed-upon way of recognizing value. Money can be used for ill, of course, but a well-placed grant can give an artist the time and breathing room to complete their work instead of working at a record store.
Then again, the notion that creative people are pure acolytes of the True Vision Of Serving Humanity is complete bullshit as well.
There's also the issue of quality control. Who's to say that someone retyping a book into HTML won't make a mistake? MP3s sound a lot crappier than CDs. And movies are made for 40-foot high screens, not for postage-stamped sized digitalizations. An artist has to be constantly vigilant to make sure that their work is not altered or damaged.
And once again, information theory is horseshit. It's like looking at a statue and seeing only atoms. The atoms didn't magically align themselves into statue form, you know.
It's time to grow up and recognize that compensating artists for their work encourages them to create more work that you will enjoy, because an artist can't create if he can't eat and doesn't have a roof over his head. By stealing their work, you become a baby in a highchair, face smeared with whatever food your parents gave you, and you're screaming at the top of your lungs for MORE, MORE, MORE. But your gluttony is never sated, and your parents will run out of food someday, and they can't get more because you're screaming too loud, but all you care about is MORE, MORE, MORE.
posted by solistrato at 9:03 PM on March 8, 2001
I don't know any artists who have been left roofless as a result of Napster. Everything I've read indicates that since file sharing became popular, they're doing better than ever.
Why is that happening?
I think it's because file sharing exposes people to more music that they like, inspiring more CD sales from enough people to make up for the sponges who listen and never buy anything. It's certainly true here -- I spent $200 on CDs this past year and nothing the year before, because the only junk I was hearing pre-Napster was the crap on the radio. I listen to Napster, and it introduces me to musicians I'd like to hear more from and musicians I forgot how much I liked.
If file sharing isn't the reason for the industry's banner year, I'm not sure what it else could be. Does anyone believe it was because of all the great groups now performing, like the Backstreet Boys, N Sync, Christine Aguilera and O Town?
posted by rcade at 9:56 PM on March 8, 2001
posted by kindall at 10:17 PM on March 8, 2001
LOL Ellison is fascinating, but never a neutral intellect. Like many of his generation, he built his reputation on identifying himself with various causes (e.g., "New Wave," feminism); now I don't think he has any real sense of what he has to offer without the contentiousness. His thinking can be quite archaic, IMHO (sadly, most sf writers are at least as subject to this functional fixedness as any other aging population). Having said that, I must confess that I go back and forth on this issue, too.
Passion carries, but too much bile drowns reason.
posted by rushmc at 10:34 PM on March 8, 2001
If Napster is beneficial, who cares what the artists think? When millions of people break the law, maybe the problem is with the law and not the people.
posted by rcade at 2:26 AM on March 9, 2001
The only people who are putting up with the discomfort involved in reading entire novels on the 'net are those who cannot afford to acquire them elsewhere. Namely, teenage boys who, after having read some of Ellisons stuff online, will then become lifelong fans and spend lots of money on his books when they get older. He shouldn't be suing this poor loser that scanned and posted his stuff, he should be paying him for his trouble. It's called "advertising", Harlan. Relax.
posted by Optamystic at 2:42 AM on March 9, 2001
I feel that people inclined to not support those that make the things they enjoy are few. But no matter what their number they would not likely buy the item in question anyway, because they are probably 40 year old losers that live with their parents.
posted by john at 3:04 AM on March 9, 2001
Um, well, the artists, I'd say. It's their stuff. If you want to pass copies around, they might find it flattering and they might not; they might give it their blessing or they might ask that it stop. But they deserve to be asked first and their wishes respected, because the creative works we enjoy copying so much would not exist without them. Eventually I truly believe most of them will come to understand that the Internet is not a threat but an opportunity, but it will take time, and some artists might never get it. In the meanwhile, let's not send a "fuck you" card to people whose work we claim to like, OK?
posted by kindall at 3:48 AM on March 9, 2001
Anyone who gets in the way of my listening to a 32-bitrate, monophonic recording of Joe Artist from 10 years ago will be crushed like the nematodes they are.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:57 AM on March 9, 2001
Uhhh, solistrato, not to get in the way of a good rant, but those examples aren't really helpful to your argument, as they indicate two ways that artists can get paid without copyright -- through charging for performances and through commissioned work. Talking about, say, Hemingway or the Carter Family (or, I dunno, Hitchcock) might be more to the point. But the idea of professional, copyright-subsidized artists is a recent one.
And not all musicians are anti-Napster. As I've said, I don't use Napster, but some musicians are down with it. (I think Boots from the Coup was interviewed on CNN talking about why he likes Napster a while back, and J Robbins of righteous DC punk band Burning Airlines says he's pro-Napster.)
What I'm concerned with is fair use -- I'm perfectly cool with the idea of not trading songs, but what about proprietary formats that wouldn't enable me to play music, read texts, or watch movies that I've purchased, how and where I please? Or worse yet, some sort of DMCA-like legal nightmare that puts me in violation of the law for uploading an Windows eText to my PalmPilot or playing a DVD on my OpenBSD box? That's what I see coming down the pike, and it bothers me.
(Hi Rebis! I dug Doom Patrols!)
posted by snarkout at 9:16 AM on March 9, 2001
Yes, let us leave that to Metallica's PR geniuses.
I believe that you are oversimplifying the issue by charactizing it as "IP belongs to those who created it." Technically, of course, you are correct. However, I think in reality it functions more as a partnership between author and audience, on some level. All those writers whose work never left their desk drawers may have derived some personal satisfaction or benefit from their work, but they did not truly participate in the process. I strongly believe that a creative person should be compensated for his work, which is at least as valuable as that of a ditchdigger, for example. But as in any business negotiation, sometimes BOTH sides must change or compromise to reach the best solution.
The primary purpose of ALL art or creative effort is to communicate, and if you don't reach an audience effectively, you're whistling in the dark. It seems to me that the net provides a huge leap forward in our ability to reach audiences, and the existing distribution systems that we currently have in place need to evolve to really take advantage of that.
Another niggling voice in the back of my mind insists that the benefits to society of a free-flow of information would almost certainly outweigh the not-insignificant costs of releasing it from its current fetters (e.g. record companies, conglomerate publishers, agents, distributors, and middlemen of all ilk)...
posted by rushmc at 8:14 AM on March 10, 2001
« Older Can "blocking software" companies be sued? | Lobster Sticks to Magnet! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by lileks at 9:07 AM on March 8, 2001