Insomniactive Productions, 1630 Cullom Street #2, Birmingham, AL, 35205
Harlan Ellison, if nothing else can be said about him, is fun to read about.
I'm not just talking about reading Ellison's creations, though his science fiction is among the only that I can stomach. Much like Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., and Warren Ellis, Harlan doesn't write sugary fantasy about love among the stars, but instead takes a speculative look at the world through critical and very real eyes. Sure, you could say that he's a cynical bastard, and that's actually the reason that I like his writing. You'd even be not entirely mistaken.
Harlan was born to guest on a show like Politically Incorrect. I rarely watch the show, as my politics tend to clash with Bill Maher's, but whenever Ellison is slated to appear, I make sure to tune in. Harlan is, to commit a serious understatement to digital paper, opinionated. To some unfamiliar with the man, he comes off as mean-spirited, unflinchingly intolerant of dissenting opinions, perhaps even a little bit typically macho. And they're not entirely mistaken.
Harlan has also participated in some wonderful public feuds, most notably with sci-fi editor and author Charles Platt and The Comics Journal's Gary Groth. Tracking down all the evidence of the bad blood between Ellison and former friends on the Internet is a really good waste of time, should you ever find yourself bored and in search of free entertainment.
But speaking of free entertainment, we come to Ellison's latest foray into mainstream culture: his current KICK Internet Piracy campaign. The long and short of it is this: some of his short stories popped up on a Usenet group, (obviously) completely unauthorized by him. He contacted the appropriate parties about having the files (because at this point, that's what they are) removed. They didn't; he sued. KICK (an acronym, Ellison says, for "Kick 'em in the ass!") was born.
Now, I'm not entirely against this course of action. We've all heard the Napster debates, and we all have our own little stance on pirate music and movies and whatnot. I'm not going to play this Rosencrantz and Gildenstern tennis match anymore; I've done it enough, and just like fans of Stoppard, I know the entire script by heart. Unlike Stoppard's, this dialogue isn't that funny.
For those who wonder, as a writer and author, I firmly believe that Napster is a good idea gone horribly wrong. While I have used Napster to track down out-of-print material, or to preview new music, the music I download gets purchased if I like it, erased if I don't. Books are the same way, electronic or not; if it's not a giveaway from the author, I pay the nominal fee, and I think it's wrong to do otherwise.
Sure, you can bring up other, non-musical arguments when it comes to the printed word. For instance, books can be checked out of the library for free, so what's the difference with finding the words on the Web? Hell, friends of mine borrow books from me all the time; I'm probably one of three people I know that keeps books to reread one day. The rest just pass them on to the next guy. And really, if you boil it all down, shouldn't we all be glad that someone is still reading out there, and not just wasting away in front of the glass teat that Ellison so soundly reviles (yet continues to provide for via The Outer Limits)?
I'm not going to argue those points, any more than I will bother discussing Napster with the 40 year old who keeps his "Free Information For Everyone" shirts in a drawer at home, where he resides with his parents. I will, however, note that writing is, for some, a career, a labor, a job that provides revenue. The moment you begin to infringe on a man's paycheck, I think the gloves are off; fair's fair, and I'm not going to come rushing to your defense when the aggrieved comes for his pound of flesh.
My only hesitation in rushing to Ellison's side on this issue is his use (to be fair, probably his lawyer's idea) of the DMCA. For those not familiar with it, the DMCA, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act (full text here), is the 1998 US Congress at their finest, reworking copyright law for the Internet age. There are some good intentions here, and a few nice addendums to existing laws, but it's a sticky document, at best. In the years since its passage, the DMCA has been used questionably, at times suggestive of censorship and other Orwellian topics. Frankly, it's more a worry for technogeeks (which still includes me), but the creative types out there aren't entirely safe, either. Go read up; I'll wait. In fact, the rest of my column will still be here when you awaken from your legislation-induced coma.
Let's say that someone asks you to build a box - let's make it a pretty, delicate sort of box, meant as a gift for your grandmother, or daughter. The idea is a good one; in fact, it is necessary, for whatever reason. Come carpentry time, though, you discover that the only tools you have at your disposal are a sledgehammer and railroad spikes. The box has to be built, though, right?
The problem with the above analogy, though, is that holding off on the construction of the box has no long ranging consequences (unless, of course, your grandmother has only weeks to live - but let's ignore my usual morbid what-ifs for now, okay?). The longer you allow copyright infringement to proceed unchecked, especially in a new medium like the relatively young Internet, the more deeply it becomes entrenched.
Weeks away from thirty, I realize that there is a gap of amazing proportions between people my age and those just ten or fifteen years younger - not quite a generation gap, but bigger at the same time. It's the Haves versus the HaveNots, part 2: coming out of high school now, you're deprived without a cell-phone, one hundred channels of digital crap, and free music on demand. The next generation has come to expect entertainment for free - to them, file sharing isn't theft, it's an inalienable right. Gnutella isn't something they think twice about - not because they don't think stealing is bad, but because, having had it for so long with no repercussions, Napster isn't stealing.
So what is the answer? There's a couple of ways of looking at all this. First, the Internet is a horrible idea gone even more awry (fine, if you feel that way, but tough titty, kitty - it's not going away, any more than other unpleasantries like bubblegum pop music or my memories of the Spider Clone saga). Second, tougher laws need to be enacted, things like the DMCA, to scare away the pirates (because tougher laws always make crime go away). Third, entertainers should just accept that times have changed (and without financial incentive, how many of your favorites musicians and writers do you think you'll be enjoying in a few months?).
I hope that Harlan wins his case, but at the same time, I don't think that any verdict in this case will provide any tangible solutions to the file sharing / theft problems. I know that if I found my stories or music being shared for free, after the initial shock and subsequent ego bloom, I would be more than a little upset about lost revenues; after all, I have to pay the rent somehow.
If only it could get paid for doing nothing but reading about the Friends and Enemies of Ellison…