Orson Scott Card, "Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe" - Page 6

Alisa · 05-05-2008, 04:25 PM

I really am astounded how emotional many people are getting over this and how freely some are attributing feelings and motives to a perfect stranger. Warner Brothers sues a publisher and it's turned into J.K. Rowling being a vindictive, bitter bully victimizing a poor, hapless librarian.

radleyp · 05-05-2008, 04:40 PM

The coverage of the trial in the New York press was similarly slanted. There is a whole side to this matter which I think we should bear in mind (without getting into a long discussion), and this is the question of how much copyright control should be retained and for how long? The U.S. Congress recently again voted to extend the term of copyright, thus giving existing copyright holders, even more control: this means that Disney or Fox or, yes, Warner's now can hold onto copyrights for even more time. The Rowling trial (really, the Warner's trial) should be considered in this light. The U.S. Constitution set a time limit on copyrights (and patents) and it seems to many of us here in the U.S. that that term should not be continually extended. Of course, Rowling is still alive, so this issue is not of immediate bearing, but it gives this trial a context which may make the emotional tone more understandable.

briancarnell · 05-05-2008, 04:42 PM

There was an extreme amount of misinformation about copyrights and trademarks in this thread. A trademark does not give you absolute control over the trademarked word or phrase as was asserted by a number of posters.

As for this book, Rowling is going to lose. Unauthorized guides to fictional universes are a dime a dozen, though typically they are TV related -- such as all those unauthorized guides to Lost or BTVS which have no connection with the copyright/trademark owner and are published for the same reason any good book is, namely to make a profit.

Tim Wu did a nice job of summarizing the case against Rowling at Slate, esp. in light of Ty's failed lawsuit over a Beanie Baby collector's guide a few years ago: http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/

Rowling will lose, and that's a good thing.

briancarnell · 05-05-2008, 04:43 PM

"I really am astounded how emotional many people are getting over this and how freely some are attributing feelings and motives to a perfect stranger. Warner Brothers sues a publisher and it's turned into J.K. Rowling being a vindictive, bitter bully victimizing a poor, hapless librarian."

Well, she/Warners are essentially arguing that no one can discuss/analyze/review Harry Potter without her/Warners permission, which is a very vindictive, bullying thing to do.

Alisa · 05-05-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by briancarnell

Well, she/Warners are essentially arguing that no one can discuss/analyze/review Harry Potter without her/Warners permission, which is a very vindictive, bullying thing to do.

I think that's a vast overstatement.

radleyp · 05-05-2008, 05:28 PM

Alisa, I don't think you are looking at what's going on here. Ask yourself, what harm can this dictionary do to HP? If it's a poor work, it will disappear, while if it's good it can only enhance. Rowling cannot control whether you and I write about HP, and use names and places that are in the books. This is what a reviewer and critic does, and it is what our unfortunate lexicographer was ready to do. Biran is quite right that an attempt to exert control over that is "bullying" and he is also right that, unless there is clear copying of content, this suit is unlikely to succeed.

Alisa · 05-05-2008, 06:08 PM

Yet she hasn't gone after reviewers or even fanfic writers.

JayCeeEll · 05-05-2008, 06:33 PM

Talk about hypocrisy:

Quote:

... However, I don't give permission for people to just copy my work for their own use. Not only is that illegal, since everything in the Lexicon is copyrighted, it's also just plain wrong. Hey, I did all the work, I put in all the time, it's my skill and talent in this area which allowed the Lexicon to come into being. No one else has the right to use my work. ...

from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/help/hp-faq.html
(search for "illegal" to find the question containing this quote)

Greg Anos · 05-05-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radleyp

The U.S. Congress recently again voted to extend the term of copyright, thus giving existing copyright holders, even more control: this means that Disney or Fox or, yes, Warner's now can hold onto copyrights for even more time. The Rowling trial (really, the Warner's trial) should be considered in this light.

Could you provide more information on the copyright expansion? The last I heard of was life + 95. is it now further?

pilotbob · 05-05-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Could you provide more information on the copyright expansion? The last I heard of was life + 95. is it now further?

From gov site:

How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ for all the info you need.

BOb

Barcey · 05-05-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotbob

From gov site:

How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ for all the info you need.

BOb

When I run this through my interpreter I get 5 compiler errors and 3 warnings of possible circular references. I must be missing some link libraries.

HarryT · 05-06-2008, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayCeeEll

Talk about hypocrisy:

from http://www.hp-lexicon.org/help/hp-faq.html
(search for "illegal" to find the question containing this quote)

I see nothing hypocritical in that - just an author quite rightly stating that she has the right to control who can and cannot use the characters that she's created.

montsnmags · 05-06-2008, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I see nothing hypocritical in that - just an author quite rightly stating that she has the right to control who can and cannot use the characters that she's created.

Ahh, which might be the case (or not, as the argument goes), except the quote is from the author of the "unauthorised" lexicon's online version. I believe that is who is thus being accused of being hypocritical.

Cheers,
Marc

HarryT · 05-06-2008, 06:35 AM

Ah - my mistake

. Thank you!

radleyp · 05-06-2008, 10:22 AM

Harry, Brian is right that there is a lot of misinformation being given here, albeit with the best intentions. Your comments above are at best misleading. You don't protect characters, or ideas or plots, you protect the form/manner in which you have given them to the public. We are getting here into interpretations of the law, and that is best left to lawyers: I don't think this is the right forum.

Alisa: of course Rowling has not gone after reviewers because she and Warner's know that reviewers and critics are allowed fair use to quote from books under review, but I have no doubt that she would like to. Protecting your work is one thing, but attacking those with much less standing - on quite weak legal grounds - is bullying.

05-05-2008, 04:42 PM	#78
briancarnell Junior Member Posts: 2 Karma: 10 Join Date: May 2008 Device: Kindle	Misinformation There was an extreme amount of misinformation about copyrights and trademarks in this thread. A trademark does not give you absolute control over the trademarked word or phrase as was asserted by a number of posters. As for this book, Rowling is going to lose. Unauthorized guides to fictional universes are a dime a dozen, though typically they are TV related -- such as all those unauthorized guides to Lost or BTVS which have no connection with the copyright/trademark owner and are published for the same reason any good book is, namely to make a profit. Tim Wu did a nice job of summarizing the case against Rowling at Slate, esp. in light of Ty's failed lawsuit over a Beanie Baby collector's guide a few years ago: http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/ Rowling will lose, and that's a good thing.

05-06-2008, 10:22 AM	#90
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	Harry, Brian is right that there is a lot of misinformation being given here, albeit with the best intentions. Your comments above are at best misleading. You don't protect characters, or ideas or plots, you protect the form/manner in which you have given them to the public. We are getting here into interpretations of the law, and that is best left to lawyers: I don't think this is the right forum. Alisa: of course Rowling has not gone after reviewers because she and Warner's know that reviewers and critics are allowed fair use to quote from books under review, but I have no doubt that she would like to. Protecting your work is one thing, but attacking those with much less standing - on quite weak legal grounds - is bullying. Last edited by radleyp; 05-06-2008 at 10:27 AM.

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

05-05-2008, 04:25 PM	#76
Alisa Gadget Geek Posts: 2,324 Karma: 22221 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Paperwhite, Kindle 3 (retired), Skindle 1.2 (retired)	I really am astounded how emotional many people are getting over this and how freely some are attributing feelings and motives to a perfect stranger. Warner Brothers sues a publisher and it's turned into J.K. Rowling being a vindictive, bitter bully victimizing a poor, hapless librarian.

05-05-2008, 04:40 PM	#77
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	The coverage of the trial in the New York press was similarly slanted. There is a whole side to this matter which I think we should bear in mind (without getting into a long discussion), and this is the question of how much copyright control should be retained and for how long? The U.S. Congress recently again voted to extend the term of copyright, thus giving existing copyright holders, even more control: this means that Disney or Fox or, yes, Warner's now can hold onto copyrights for even more time. The Rowling trial (really, the Warner's trial) should be considered in this light. The U.S. Constitution set a time limit on copyrights (and patents) and it seems to many of us here in the U.S. that that term should not be continually extended. Of course, Rowling is still alive, so this issue is not of immediate bearing, but it gives this trial a context which may make the emotional tone more understandable.

05-05-2008, 04:43 PM	#79
briancarnell Junior Member Posts: 2 Karma: 10 Join Date: May 2008 Device: Kindle	"I really am astounded how emotional many people are getting over this and how freely some are attributing feelings and motives to a perfect stranger. Warner Brothers sues a publisher and it's turned into J.K. Rowling being a vindictive, bitter bully victimizing a poor, hapless librarian." Well, she/Warners are essentially arguing that no one can discuss/analyze/review Harry Potter without her/Warners permission, which is a very vindictive, bullying thing to do.

05-05-2008, 05:28 PM	#81
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	Alisa, I don't think you are looking at what's going on here. Ask yourself, what harm can this dictionary do to HP? If it's a poor work, it will disappear, while if it's good it can only enhance. Rowling cannot control whether you and I write about HP, and use names and places that are in the books. This is what a reviewer and critic does, and it is what our unfortunate lexicographer was ready to do. Biran is quite right that an attempt to exert control over that is "bullying" and he is also right that, unless there is clear copying of content, this suit is unlikely to succeed.

05-05-2008, 06:08 PM	#82
Alisa Gadget Geek Posts: 2,324 Karma: 22221 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Paperwhite, Kindle 3 (retired), Skindle 1.2 (retired)	Yet she hasn't gone after reviewers or even fanfic writers.

05-06-2008, 06:35 AM	#89
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,560 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Ah - my mistake . Thank you!