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

[BenG]

Reason magazine has an article about the case:
Hogwarts Law School

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by jplumey

Speaking as a fan of Rowling and the Harry Potter universe, I think she has every right to fight this, especially since she has made known for at least two years that she was planning on writing her own encyclopedia. In her shoes I would the exact same thing. Here's a guy that writes a book based completely on someone else's writing, without adding any of his own creative content, and then expects to be able to publish it without so much as asking for the author's approval. It doesn't matter that Rowling used the site on occasion; the site was well done and had her stamp of approval.

All I see here is the Lexicon author's greed. He obviously has no creative talent on his own so he strives to earn a buck of Rowling's.

These are her invented characters, names, and places. Had he actually gotten permission to write the book, and gone through the proper channels he may have gotten an endorsement.

Maybe if Mr. Cards books were as popular as hers he would be in the same position to have to defend his work!

It appears to me you aren't especially a fan of Orson Scott Card. Does that mean that if somebody were to make a similar lexicon about his books you'd support its author against Mr Card?

In such a case, whether or not one appreciates the work of the initial author should be irrelevant, the same way whether said author has become a millionaire because of her work or is penniless. That's not what this is about. What it's about is the extent of control that current laws give to copyrights' owners.

[Alisa]

Sorry to interject, but I must say I was a bigger fan of Mr. Card until I read that rant of his. He went down a few pegs in my estimation. I don't need him to agree with me but he could have made his point, better in my opinion, had he not been so hateful.

[astrodad]

Originally Posted by Trenien

It appears to me you aren't especially a fan of Orson Scott Card. Does that mean that if somebody were to make a similar lexicon about his books you'd support its author against Mr Card?

In such a case, whether or not one appreciates the work of the initial author should be irrelevant, the same way whether said author has become a millionaire because of her work or is penniless. That's not what this is about. What it's about is the extent of control that current laws give to copyrights' owners.

I would support Mr. Card. My opinion has nothing to with my view of the author. I think he's suffering from a bit of jealousy, that's all. He shouldn't, though. It's not like he's unsuccessful.

I think Rowling or Card should be in control of any work that is derived in such as direct fashion from their own.

[evil_bunny]

If Mr. Card supports the copy material off the Internet uncredited and submit it off as your work then I don't support Mr. Card.

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Sorry to interject, but I must say I was a bigger fan of Mr. Card until I read that rant of his. He went down a few pegs in my estimation. I don't need him to agree with me but he could have made his point, better in my opinion, had he not been so hateful.

ya know...you make an excellent point. He could have used a lot less venom in his opinion. I think that is true whether one agrees or disagrees with OSC.

I have enjoyed both authors and also have found some of their work abysmal. I have also found both to have good insightful ideas and opinions as well as, ummmm, seeming to lack the common sense gawd gave cow dung. Could be a case of the latter here.

OSC wrote what he wrote and JKR has said what she said...it's done, not our problem. If either writes another book I might enjoy, great...if not...fine too.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by evil_bunny

AND NOW HERE'S THE GOOD PART transcript 3, page 600, line 9:


And I've pretty much given up on reading testimony. But honestly now ... it looks like Steve himself didn't think it was a good idea. So how did we get into this position?

Ah. This would be the source of the 90% figure, I suppose. But that would indicate that a quote from the books appears somewhere within 90% of the entries, not that each of the entries consists of 90% material quoted from the works (which, based on my own admittedly rather cursory review, it doesn't).

I've been in court (I was sued once). Lawyers for both sides tend to try to get people to say the most amazing things. The legal system is not a good way to solve disagreements, but I guess attempts at settlement failed on this particular point. (Remember, there were also other points of the suit that were settled.)

[The Alternative]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course it's a derivative work! Copyright law allows limited quoting from a work for purposes of literary criticism, etc, but this hardly constitutes that.

Besides which, this is not a "fan guide", distributed free on the internet. It's a commercial publication. This is just a guy who's cynically trying to make money from Ms. Rowling's work.

Harry, if memory serves, this "Fan guide" was exactly that - a "lexicon" that was originally distributed freely on the internet. It wasn't until the content was gathered into a book form and scheduled for publication that Rowling objected and sued. Seems to me that Rowling's motive was clear - as long as no one was making money on it it was okay for everyone - the moment there was money to be made on it she "intejected."

[HarryT]

... which seems eminently reasonable to me.

[nekokami]

Well... it seems reasonable, but it would still be copyright infringement either way, right? There are many who've argued in these forums that it doesn't matter if copies of ebooks (not in public domain) are being distributed freely or sold, it's still copyright infringement.

On the other hand, one can imagine an author specifically saying "your non-commercial use is fine by me, just don't try to sell it." Perhaps that's the argument here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

On the other hand, one can imagine an author specifically saying "your non-commercial use is fine by me, just don't try to sell it." Perhaps that's the argument here.

That was my point, Neko. Many authors are happy to turn a blind eye to fan-fiction, for example, which, generally speaking, is technically in breach of the author's copyright in that it's a "derivative work" (I know that there are a few authors who specifically sanction it). If that same fan-fiction were to be commercially published and sold, however, then those same authors would, I suspect, really have no choice but to take legal action to prevent that publication.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is that really this guy's real name - "Vander Ark"?

Just finished reading this entire thread. Really interesting points on both sides.

But, Harry .... yes, absolutely, yes. Vander Ark and Van Ark are rather common Dutch last names.

Not getting into the discussion otherwise ... I know just enough about copyright law to see how it will be argued on each side, and I wouldn't want to even try to predict the outcome.

[Rosethorn1403]

Hah. Rowling obviously is a little behind the 8 ball when it comes to this.l It could be very easily claimed that ROwling ripped off author Jill Murphy's phenomenally successful Worst Witch series, first published in 1974.

The story goes as such: dark haired young person of impressive magical heritage raised by non magical people goes to magic school (a stone castle atop a mountain surrounded by a forest) turns out to be very talented, however has a tendency to get into trouble, has a disregard for school rules and causes things to happen unintentionally. This person has two friends, one of whom is very smart, the other is a prankster who often gets them into trouble with their temper. They are antagonised by the rich, snobbish, stuck up vindictive blonde classmate and their bumbling sidekick. They are supported by the potions teacher, who also gives them grief. The trios misbehaviour is looked upon with fond tolerance and amusement by the head of the school who indulges them. This head of school has a sybling/twin who is opposite of them. The trio have many adventures and face off against the evil arch enemy, who plots to take over the school and achieve power with a coven of chosen other magical people...

hmmmmm the similarities are such that if we are going to nitpick like rowling then she could very well be sued as well!

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Rosethorn1403

Hah. Rowling obviously is a little behind the 8 ball when it comes to this.l It could be very easily claimed that ROwling ripped off author Jill Murphy's phenomenally successful Worst Witch series, first published in 1974.

The story goes as such: dark haired young person of impressive magical heritage raised by non magical people goes to magic school (a stone castle atop a mountain surrounded by a forest) turns out to be very

The good vs evil, young unskilled hero, older grandfather like mentor, quest of some kind is a common theme in many stories:

The Bible, Lord of the Rings, The Bellgariad, Star Wars, etc. Does this mean they all stole from each other? Remember, copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed

BOb

[Andurian]

I don't particularly like either of them. Rowling is just greedy, and I don't buy the "has to protect her IP argument." There are a hundred unofficial Star Wars and Star Trek things out there, and nobody has lost their IP rights in those cases.

Card is worse, a traitor. He advocates violent revolution if he doesn't get his way on gay marriage:

"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn." (Mormon Times, Thursday, Jul. 24, 2008)

Bigots are bad enough, but one who tell us that if their bigotry isn't consistently enacted into law he'll try to tear down the American government? It wouldn't be American to censor him, but I certainly am not going to buy his books and I'll put him in the same moral camp as Bin Laden.