Article - 'Harry Potter' among those missing from e-library

[poohbear_nc]

[QUOTE=sirbruce;441731]And yet somehow special fx laden 3D movies and videogames and Java-animated websites are just fine...

Way back and when, JKR appeared on 60 Minutes flogging her story of writing in a coffee shop while on the dole, etc. - and promised that she would never profit by merchandising HP, as is done with Disney characters - there would only be the books & carefully filmed movie versions. HP would be kept "pure" and non-commercial.
Yeah, right.
She's sold out on every other "promise" - so what's the problem with ebooks?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And that phrase "The estate of" worries me a whole lot. A lot of these works should be in the public domain by now, especially Tenesee Williams and Tolkien's writings. The estate of...otherwise known as...leechers

In defense of the Tolkien estate at least, Christopher Tolkien is actually actively working on the material left behind by his father. He's published more of his father's work than was published during his lifetime.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by GlennD

In defense of the Tolkien estate at least, Christopher Tolkien is actually actively working on the material left behind by his father. He's published more of his father's work than was published during his lifetime.

I'm not a Tolkien fan, but what exactly does hs son do that warrants royalties going to him from his long dead father's work? Editing? Is he producing any of his own material?

[sirbruce]

Much of Tolkien's unpublished works consist of multiple fragments of a larger story, and/or multiple versions of the same story. Christopher typically has to:

1. Assemble all the relevant pieces.

2. Decide which parts of which version to use.

3. Integrate them together, sometimes writing his own connecting text.

4. Add copious notes about the other versions of a particular part and cross-referencing with Tolkien's work elsewhere.

He receives royalties anyway since he's part of the estate. His own versions do get new copyrights, but I don't *think* he gets individual royalties on those; I believe all of that goes back into the estate trust (of which he gets his share).

[Lemurion]

Christopher Tolkien has been working his ass off for 35 years - he deserves compensation.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Much of Tolkien's unpublished works consist of multiple fragments of a larger story, and/or multiple versions of the same story. Christopher typically has to:

1. Assemble all the relevant pieces.

2. Decide which parts of which version to use.

3. Integrate them together, sometimes writing his own connecting text.

4. Add copious notes about the other versions of a particular part and cross-referencing with Tolkien's work elsewhere.

He receives royalties anyway since he's part of the estate. His own versions do get new copyrights, but I don't *think* he gets individual royalties on those; I believe all of that goes back into the estate trust (of which he gets his share).

So, from what you say, he's an editor of sorts, and partly biographer and critic? I can see how there's a compelling argument for him to take some recompense for that work, but I wonder how the rest of the copyright profits are shared out. How many are getting paid for nothing more than a fortunate bloodline?

[John F]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

... I don't hate JKR. ... So while I'm not a bad person, I'm basically left with hoping for her death. ...

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So, from what you say, he's an editor of sorts, and partly biographer and critic? I can see how there's a compelling argument for him to take some recompense for that work, but I wonder how the rest of the copyright profits are shared out. How many are getting paid for nothing more than a fortunate bloodline?

Loads of people get paid for a fortunate bloodline, some of them even become peers of the realm or kings and queens etc... but what can you do about it? We can't surely suggest that any estate left on a person's death reverts to the state can we?

I for one would like to leave my children a little to get them started in life. Now, I'm not likely to be in the Tolkein/Rowling bracket (unless the market for memoirs by short, fat, bald software testers really takes off) but, even so, I'd be pretty cheesed off if anything I do manage to scrape together is denied to my children when I'm gone.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Loads of people get paid for a fortunate bloodline, some of them even become peers of the realm or kings and queens etc... but what can you do about it? We can't surely suggest that any estate left on a person's death reverts to the state can we?

I for one would like to leave my children a little to get them started in life. Now, I'm not likely to be in the Tolkein/Rowling bracket (unless the market for memoirs by short, fat, bald software testers really takes off) but, even so, I'd be pretty cheesed off if anything I do manage to scrape together is denied to my children when I'm gone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to leave something behind to your children, that would be cruel and pointless in my eyes. What I'm suggesting is that copyright shouldn't be that 'something' and if it is, then it shouldn't last so long. This work (barring the editing and work that his son has done, all of which is laudable and should be rewarded) should have entered the Public Domain to enrich culture a long time ago. Personal inheritence like a house or money cannot enrich the culture we live in (unless the house is of some cultural significance).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So, from what you say, he's an editor of sorts, and partly biographer and critic? I can see how there's a compelling argument for him to take some recompense for that work, but I wonder how the rest of the copyright profits are shared out. How many are getting paid for nothing more than a fortunate bloodline?

Children have always been able to inherit their parents' wealth and assets.

If copyright protection ended at death, there'd be no financial incentive for anyone on his deathbed to write or compose or publish scientific results. Since the purpose of copyright law is to promote progress, the ability to compensate heirs in the absence of the author is included.

Don't bitch about Christopher Tolkein, who has done tremendous work to keep his father's work available.

If you want to complain, take note of Zora Neale Hurston's books. She died at a welfare hospital in 1960, and the rights to her books are owned by Harper Collins. A lot of the works of the Harlem Renaissance are still under copyright--and those copyrights are often owned by publishing houses, because that was the only way the authors could be published at all.

The big-name authors, whose works are still inspiring movies, are not good examples of the problems with copyright laws. The real problems are with less well known authors, whose works are being lost in the flood of new works and remakes of old works. By the time they're out of copyright and can be freely shared around, they will be so out of date as to be mostly meaningless. We are losing our access to our parents' histories because it's locked away in contracts by publishers, recording industries, and movie executives.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Children have always been able to inherit their parents' wealth and assets.

If copyright protection ended at death, there'd be no financial incentive for anyone on his deathbed to write or compose or publish scientific results. Since the purpose of copyright law is to promote progress, the ability to compensate heirs in the absence of the author is included.

Don't bitch about Christopher Tolkein, who has done tremendous work to keep his father's work available.

If you want to complain, take note of Zora Neale Hurston's books. She died at a welfare hospital in 1960, and the rights to her books are owned by Harper Collins. A lot of the works of the Harlem Renaissance are still under copyright--and those copyrights are often owned by publishing houses, because that was the only way the authors could be published at all.

The big-name authors, whose works are still inspiring movies, are not good examples of the problems with copyright laws. The real problems are with less well known authors, whose works are being lost in the flood of new works and remakes of old works. By the time they're out of copyright and can be freely shared around, they will be so out of date as to be mostly meaningless. We are losing our access to our parents' histories because it's locked away in contracts by publishers, recording industries, and movie executives.

I wasn't "bitching" and your tone is innapropriate. I was asking a question as I didn't know near enough about Tolkien (don't like his writing, never have) or how his Estate is run. There are other examples, as in the ones you posted, which show just how much authors copyrights are abused for profit.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Loads of people get paid for a fortunate bloodline, some of them even become peers of the realm or kings and queens etc... but what can you do about it? We can't surely suggest that any estate left on a person's death reverts to the state can we?

I for one would like to leave my children a little to get them started in life. Now, I'm not likely to be in the Tolkein/Rowling bracket (unless the market for memoirs by short, fat, bald software testers really takes off) but, even so, I'd be pretty cheesed off if anything I do manage to scrape together is denied to my children when I'm gone.

It's not about denying one's children their inheritance. Letting something pass into the public domain does not involve going into the bank accounts of the author's estate and removing money from them.

It does prevent creative works from becoming a perpetual source of income for large corporations that profit on the monopoly. It's just like patent expiration: even when the generic drug becomes available you can still get the authorized version.

The public domain allows for the cross-fertilization of existing works and springboards new creative ideas.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to leave something behind to your children, that would be cruel and pointless in my eyes. What I'm suggesting is that copyright shouldn't be that 'something' and if it is, then it shouldn't last so long. This work (barring the editing and work that his son has done, all of which is laudable and should be rewarded) should have entered the Public Domain to enrich culture a long time ago. Personal inheritence like a house or money cannot enrich the culture we live in (unless the house is of some cultural significance).

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It's not about denying one's children their inheritance. Letting something pass into the public domain does not involve going into the bank accounts of the author's estate and removing money from them.

It does prevent creative works from becoming a perpetual source of income for large corporations that profit on the monopoly. It's just like patent expiration: even when the generic drug becomes available you can still get the authorized version.

The public domain allows for the cross-fertilization of existing works and springboards new creative ideas.

OK guys - thanks, I do see the distinction now between inheritance of money/property and the passing on of copyright.

I guess it gets a bit hazy if a copyright is all you have to pass on and you would appear to be drawing a line between an individual's son or daughter holding the copyright as opposed to selling that on to MegaPublishing Corporation (or similar)?

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

OK guys - thanks, I do see the distinction now between inheritance of money/property and the passing on of copyright.

I guess it gets a bit hazy if a copyright is all you have to pass on and you would appear to be drawing a line between an individual's son or daughter holding the copyright as opposed to selling that on to MegaPublishing Corporation (or similar)?

Before I go further: My own income is 100% from writing and I am a parent, so I do have a horse in this race.

I believe that copyright should exist, and that it should be heritable. However I also believe that current copyright terms are too long: I think something like either 42 years fixed or Life+28 would be reasonable, but I may be erring on the side of shortness.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So, from what you say, he's an editor of sorts, and partly biographer and critic?

No, from what I say, he's an editor and part-wrtier.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I can see how there's a compelling argument for him to take some recompense for that work, but I wonder how the rest of the copyright profits are shared out. How many are getting paid for nothing more than a fortunate bloodline?

I don't know; there are dozens of descendants now, but I don't know who all gets what percentage. Christropher is trustee but also has copyrights on the stuff he adds so he generates some income for himself. They also have a charitable trust which they fund. As for people getting paid for a "fortunate bloodline", well I don't know if you mean that as an anti-aristocrat or a socialist-democrat or what but even in the United States the right of heirs to their parents' property is part of the American Dream.