Orson Scott Card, "Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe" - Page 5

nekokami · 05-04-2008, 12:41 PM

Hm. I'm quite familiar with the web version of the Lexicon. (In fact, an essay of mine appears in one of the other sections, not the A-Z index.) I don't think the claim that 91% of the content is quoted from the books will stand in court, sworn testimony or not. Many of the entries are for real-world place names, previously existing mythological beasts or artifacts, etc. Mentions of portions of the books are referenced by volume, and not by specific page, which is perhaps where the claim about incorrect citation comes from.

Nor do I think sales of the Lexicon would in any way impact sales of any future encyclopedia efforts Ms. Rowling would like to produce, as (by reputation) such a work would contain substantial material not revealed in the previously published books.

I like the Harry Potter series. But I think Ms. Rowling is a little bit controlling about it. I don't mean from a legal standpoint, but from an emotional one-- for example, she got very worked up when the final chapter of her book was posted online before the print date, and I don't think money was a big part of it. She seemed to need to control the book's release so that fans would have to wait for her (and her publisher's) timeline. I see this as the same sort of thing. She was fine with the Lexicon when it appeared online. There is no particular indication that the online version is going away or wouldn't continue to be freely accessible. As far as I can see, though, the work of creating the Lexicon was substantial and I have no problem with the author looking for a way to be compensated for that work.

And HarryT, she's apparently suing on the basis of copyright, not trademark, so I'm not sure your logic would hold here (though I know what you mean about the obligation to protect trademark).

Gatton · 05-04-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonp

(See the New Yorker).

simonp thanks very much for posting that URL. It's a fascinating article.

ePossum · 05-04-2008, 08:03 PM

I think that in the entire debacle, Rowlings is the player least motivated by financial gain.

Warner Brothers & RDR Books are clearly in it for the money - and I reckon the same goes for Vander Ark. If Vander Ark's motive truly were just adoration of HP & co, he would have sought permission from Rowling before embarking on the project of creating a commercially available lexicon - and the whole scenario would never have arisen. He might be a naive fool, but he is, without doubt, also in it for the money.

On the otherhand, Rowlings investment in the whole thing appears to be predominantly a personal (not financial) desire to maintain control of her creation.

Rowlings has more money (I persume) than anyone posting to this list, and she is certainly backward in her attitudes to e-publishing - but I don't believe she deserves to have invective hurled at her, just because she wants to have some control over a fictional world that she's worked hard to create.

carld · 05-04-2008, 09:06 PM

I think Rowling is in the right, and I don't doubt that she will prevail. But the world will be a worse place for it anyway.

OrangeCrush · 05-05-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I have read the article.

To repeat, I believe that Ms. Rowling has to fight this case to protect her trademarks. She really has no choice but to do so, regardless of the "rights" or "wrongs" of the situation. That's just what you have to do in trademark violation cases. Even if she loses the case, she will still have acted to defend the trademarks, and that's the important thing.

In what way do Ms. Rowling's books "deprive anyone of their income"? Your logic escapes me there, I'm afraid.

I am sorry but nobody has to do anything and she has already made enough money on this series than most people could ever even dream of making in a lifetime. This lawsuit is frivolous and nothing short of ridiculous given the fact surrounding the case. The fact that she didn't claim such ridiculous copyright violations back when she herself was using the website makes this case an absolute joke and a waste of everyone's time.

She doesn't have a chance in hell at winning this and I only wish that people could bet on the outcome of trials as I would sink my entire retirement fund on this one. Copyright infringements, LOL. Next she is going to try and sue the reviewers of the books for using words like Hogwarts in the review.

Mr. Card has nailed this one perfectly and the hypocrisy surrounding this entire case given the massive amount of claims laid against Rowling and her work is astonishing. My only regret is that I actually purchased two of her books as gifts.

Well the good news is that this case will have nothing but a positive outcome. She will lose this case, end up having to pay money to the author and on top of that this whole thing just exposes what a b*tch this woman has become. Again Mr. Card has nailed this perfectly and she has just become a bitter person due to the massive lack of respect her series has received in literary circles.

Cant wait to see what her comments are when she loses.

HappyMartin · 05-05-2008, 10:04 AM

Wow, all she did was write a massively successful series of books that gave many people much pleasure and made a lot of people money all the way down to people selling books and people stacking shelves. Each book sold represents a decision someone made of their own free will.

I tried the books and never finished one, not my taste but the woman deserves at least some respect for her achievements. I don't see anything she has done to deserve such abuse as she is getting here. Its not like she has invaded a country or locked members of her family in a cellar or anything.

Justified or not, I don't know, but she has the legal right to do as she has in this case. Sure the debate is interesting but hurling abuse at her is not and adds very little to the arguments and counter arguments.

HarryT · 05-05-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

She doesn't have a chance in hell at winning this and I only wish that people could bet on the outcome of trials as I would sink my entire retirement fund on this one. Copyright infringements, LOL. Next she is going to try and sue the reviewers of the books for using words like Hogwarts in the review.

I predict that you are going to lose your retirement fund. Let's wait and see.

radleyp · 05-05-2008, 12:17 PM

Could someone please tell me what trademarks we are talking about? Trademarks are commercial symbols whose existence depends ultimately and everywhere on use in commerce. I thought we were discussing copyright here, and that's a very different matter.

Nate the great · 05-05-2008, 12:21 PM

The trademarks in question (at least in the US) are owned by Warner Brothers, and were registered about the time she sold the movie rights. Ms. Rowling doesn't own any of the trademarks in the US that I could find.

radleyp · 05-05-2008, 12:24 PM

These are then the labels that will be placed on all the items derived from HP and then sold to the public (dolls, games, videos, food, etc...) They have nothing to do, so far as I can tell, with this discussion.

NatCh · 05-05-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kacir

What language is [Finnegans Wake] written in?

It's not Middle Gibberish? Old Twaddle then, perhaps?

Apparently (I learned this while earning my Marital B.S. in Victorian Literature, i.e., listening to my wife talk about earing her Ph.D. in the same -- she actually managed to read the deuced thing, and claimed to understand it, yet), it's supposed to make sense if you pay attention to the sounds of the ... letters (not to say words) and let them suggest actual words to you.

It should be noted, that the first part of the book reportedly takes place after the last part, as in, they tie right together chronologically.

Truly he must have been mixing his laudanum.

HarryT · 05-05-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The trademarks in question (at least in the US) are owned by Warner Brothers, and were registered about the time she sold the movie rights. Ms. Rowling doesn't own any of the trademarks in the US that I could find.

If you look at the legal documents (there's a link in the first post in the thread) you'll see that it's Warner Bros. who filed the case. It does, however, appear to be solely a copyright case, not a trademark one, from what I've read of the document thus far.

DaleDe · 05-05-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radleyp

These are then the labels that will be placed on all the items derived from HP and then sold to the public (dolls, games, videos, food, etc...) They have nothing to do, so far as I can tell, with this discussion.

They could as names can also be trademarked such as Harry Potter, not just labels. And even characters can be trademarked. Thus names that appear in a dictionary can be in conflict.

Dale

HarryT · 05-05-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaleDe

They could as names can also be trademarked such as Harry Potter, not just labels. And even characters can be trademarked. Thus names that appear in a dictionary can be in conflict.

Dale

Even faces can be trademarked. The appearance of all the original "Star Trek" characters are Paramount trademarks.

radleyp · 05-05-2008, 12:55 PM

That is true, character names and book titles can be trademarked (though not copyrighted) but it would be unusual and it would look very strange too (since,in the U.S. at least, the little "r" in a circle would have to appear after each name). It's as commercial labels that these single names and logos and drawings and even sounds and colors are used. In any case, that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing originality which is the test of copyright: if it's original it's copyrightable and protectable. (Use in commerce is the test for trademarks).

05-04-2008, 09:06 PM	#64
carld Wizard Posts: 2,698 Karma: 4748723 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Kindle Paperwhite	I think Rowling is in the right, and I don't doubt that she will prevail. But the world will be a worse place for it anyway. Last edited by carld; 05-04-2008 at 09:23 PM. Reason: Off Topic

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Heartfire - Orson Scott Card	leebase	Reading Recommendations	0	06-24-2010 04:30 PM
Alvin Journeyman - Orson Scott Card	leebase	Reading Recommendations	0	06-24-2010 04:19 PM
Prentice Alvin - Orson Scott Card	leebase	Reading Recommendations	0	06-21-2010 12:42 PM
Seventh Son - Orson Scott Card	leebase	Reading Recommendations	3	06-18-2010 10:34 PM
"Magic Street" by Orson Scott Card	Andybaby	Reading Recommendations	15	01-20-2009 10:56 AM

05-04-2008, 12:41 PM	#61
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	Hm. I'm quite familiar with the web version of the Lexicon. (In fact, an essay of mine appears in one of the other sections, not the A-Z index.) I don't think the claim that 91% of the content is quoted from the books will stand in court, sworn testimony or not. Many of the entries are for real-world place names, previously existing mythological beasts or artifacts, etc. Mentions of portions of the books are referenced by volume, and not by specific page, which is perhaps where the claim about incorrect citation comes from. Nor do I think sales of the Lexicon would in any way impact sales of any future encyclopedia efforts Ms. Rowling would like to produce, as (by reputation) such a work would contain substantial material not revealed in the previously published books. I like the Harry Potter series. But I think Ms. Rowling is a little bit controlling about it. I don't mean from a legal standpoint, but from an emotional one-- for example, she got very worked up when the final chapter of her book was posted online before the print date, and I don't think money was a big part of it. She seemed to need to control the book's release so that fans would have to wait for her (and her publisher's) timeline. I see this as the same sort of thing. She was fine with the Lexicon when it appeared online. There is no particular indication that the online version is going away or wouldn't continue to be freely accessible. As far as I can see, though, the work of creating the Lexicon was substantial and I have no problem with the author looking for a way to be compensated for that work. And HarryT, she's apparently suing on the basis of copyright, not trademark, so I'm not sure your logic would hold here (though I know what you mean about the obligation to protect trademark).

05-04-2008, 08:03 PM	#63
ePossum Enthusiast Posts: 38 Karma: 11 Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Device: iliad v.2, Dana Alphasmart	I think that in the entire debacle, Rowlings is the player least motivated by financial gain. Warner Brothers & RDR Books are clearly in it for the money - and I reckon the same goes for Vander Ark. If Vander Ark's motive truly were just adoration of HP & co, he would have sought permission from Rowling before embarking on the project of creating a commercially available lexicon - and the whole scenario would never have arisen. He might be a naive fool, but he is, without doubt, also in it for the money. On the otherhand, Rowlings investment in the whole thing appears to be predominantly a personal (not financial) desire to maintain control of her creation. Rowlings has more money (I persume) than anyone posting to this list, and she is certainly backward in her attitudes to e-publishing - but I don't believe she deserves to have invective hurled at her, just because she wants to have some control over a fictional world that she's worked hard to create.

05-05-2008, 10:04 AM	#66
HappyMartin Martin Kristiansen Posts: 1,546 Karma: 8480958 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Johannesburg Device: Kindle International Ipad 2	Wow, all she did was write a massively successful series of books that gave many people much pleasure and made a lot of people money all the way down to people selling books and people stacking shelves. Each book sold represents a decision someone made of their own free will. I tried the books and never finished one, not my taste but the woman deserves at least some respect for her achievements. I don't see anything she has done to deserve such abuse as she is getting here. Its not like she has invaded a country or locked members of her family in a cellar or anything. Justified or not, I don't know, but she has the legal right to do as she has in this case. Sure the debate is interesting but hurling abuse at her is not and adds very little to the arguments and counter arguments.

05-05-2008, 12:17 PM	#68
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	Could someone please tell me what trademarks we are talking about? Trademarks are commercial symbols whose existence depends ultimately and everywhere on use in commerce. I thought we were discussing copyright here, and that's a very different matter.

05-05-2008, 12:21 PM	#69
Nate the great Sir Penguin of Edinburgh Posts: 12,375 Karma: 23555235 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: DC Metro area Device: Shake a stick plus 1	The trademarks in question (at least in the US) are owned by Warner Brothers, and were registered about the time she sold the movie rights. Ms. Rowling doesn't own any of the trademarks in the US that I could find.

05-05-2008, 12:24 PM	#70
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	These are then the labels that will be placed on all the items derived from HP and then sold to the public (dolls, games, videos, food, etc...) They have nothing to do, so far as I can tell, with this discussion.

05-05-2008, 12:55 PM	#75
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	That is true, character names and book titles can be trademarked (though not copyrighted) but it would be unusual and it would look very strange too (since,in the U.S. at least, the little "r" in a circle would have to appear after each name). It's as commercial labels that these single names and logos and drawings and even sounds and colors are used. In any case, that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing originality which is the test of copyright: if it's original it's copyrightable and protectable. (Use in commerce is the test for trademarks).

Advert

Advert