Orson Scott Card, "Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe" - Page 3

Lobolover · 05-02-2008, 11:55 AM

it's just-she has more money then the queen,but she doesn't touch a penny from it to give to charity,making MORE money so that she will not have to spend.Compared to her fortune,that donation is also not wery big.I think all the popularity wasn't a good idea.

HarryT · 05-02-2008, 11:56 AM

Ms. Rowling has given a number of items to charity auctions in the past, and they've previously sold for a maximum of a few £10,000. This book was expected to go for £40,000 max - I suspect that nobody was more surprised than she when it attracted fierce bidding between six very determined bidders and finished up going for that price.

I strongly suspect, too, that writing a book by hand involved considerably more work on her part than telling her accountant to give £x to charity. She is to be applauded for her charity work, IMHO.

NatCh · 05-02-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobolover

it's just-she has more money then the queen,but she doesn't touch a penny from it to give to charity,making MORE money so that she will not have to spend.Compared to her fortune,that donation is also not wery big.I think all the popularity wasn't a good idea.

I don't have visibility of her total charitable donations, and meaning no disrespect, I rather doubt you do either.

For all any of us knows, she could be giving half of her annual income to charities and simply not bragging about it.

I'm not saying I really believe that she is doing that, I'm trying to point out that we don't know and I think it's rather poor form to berate her for what we assume that she is or isn't doing.

Lobolover · 05-02-2008, 12:01 PM

Ive seen people "playing" quiditch in real life.Honestly,there's wery litle that can surprise me,in coneciton with HP fandom.

Shaggy · 05-02-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Personally I think that Ms. Rowling is 100% in the right, here.

Yeah, there's a big surprise!

Moonraker · 05-02-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote from J.K.R on her website:

Quote:

"From what I understand, the proposed book is not criticism or review of Harry Potter's world, which would be entirely legitimate -- neither I nor anybody connected with Harry Potter has ever tried to prevent such works being published. It is, we believe, a print version of the website, except now the information that was freely available to everybody is to become a commercial enterprise."

What a Luddite the woman is, does she not realise that the Lexicon website does generate money so it is a commercial enterprise?

As far as I am aware, there is no difference in copyright law between publishing online or in print. She accepted the online content and even gave the site a fan award. Therefore, why does she object to the same content being available in print?

Alisa · 05-02-2008, 12:41 PM

I don't think she's a luddite. I think when it got into print it entered the realm that she has to protect against to preserve her intellectual property rights. As a website she can still largely ignore it with no repercussions at this stage of the game. Bear in mind, this likely had nothing to do with Ms. Rowling getting a bee in her bonnet. She has expert legal counsel that manages this stuff for her.

plantedbypiggies · 05-02-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kacir

BRAVO Mr. Card. BRAVISSIMO.
Touche!!!

Erm, no. What Mr. Card expressed is an idea for a story. That in and of itself cannot be copyrighted. What can be copyrighted is the form in which an idea is realized. That's why Card isn't able to sue Rowling for copyright infringement even though their stories are reasonably "similar" in concept.

I believe under law, a lexicon for a specific futuristic universe would be a derivative of the originator's work, especially if it were using the character's names and extensive uncited quotes from the source material.

For a quick primer on copyright, check out a fair(y) use tale. Funny and informative!

evil_bunny · 05-02-2008, 01:53 PM

First off, I'm guilty of not reading his post. So perhaps he knows things that I don't, but I rather doubt that. I've been tracking the specifics of the trial through news outlets, such as those from the Harry Potter fandom, the Leaky Cauldron.

The matter at hand is not that you can't create derivative works, because there are *many* books of scholarly analysis of the Harry Potter books. Please go to your local Borders and ask one of the booksellers there to help you. If they can't / don't / won't I'm sorry.

The matter at hand is that 91% (a figure from sworn testimony provided in the trial) of the book was lifted directly from the text in the books, without proper citations. If you recall in school, teachers would allow you to quote from other sources, but only if you managed to cite? This book did not provide the citations.

Offers have been made to allow the book to be published, if the author would simply rewrite the text in his own words (or provide sufficient citations) however such requests have been refused. The book was rushed to try and capitalize on the publication of the seventh Harry Potter book.

Please note that the author is not the target of the lawsuit, as his contract shields him from liability. The publisher, RDR is the defendant. J.K. Rowling has always been very supportive of the online fan community, but the fan award should not be considered authorization for plagiarism.

TheLongshot · 05-02-2008, 02:06 PM

I read Neil Gaiman's comments on this, and it seems to be a potential grey area in copyright law. Does the work in question have enough unique effort in it to qualify as a new work? Certainly, the work to put together the lexicon is not trivial. The question is, is it enough?

I don't begrudge Rowling at all for this, because it is well within her rights. It is her franchise and in her best interests to protect it.

Jason

Moonraker · 05-02-2008, 03:33 PM

Perhaps she feels she's been "pipped at the post" because she wanted to produce her own A to Z (oops, sorry Map company didn't mean to infringe your trademark) even though I thought she told the whole world she wasn't going to write anything more to do with Harry Potter.

This litigation will certainly delay Mr. VanderArk's book to give her time to produce her own.

And it always irritates me that these millionaires... oops... billionaires try to earn themselves popularity by making it known that they "Donate" to charity. Considering she (allegedly) earns over £1 million every day she can well afford it. It is said she gave £22 million to Comic Relief which is admirable and must have taken her all of 3 weeks to earn it.

This business leaves a nasty taste in my mouth and, will we soon have to start writing "allegedly" in our comments for fear of being sued for expressing free speech?

Am I cynical? Well, yes I am, I have lived too long and seen too many actions that exploit people to be entirely trusting of human motives.

wmrawls · 05-02-2008, 03:43 PM

I am not a big fan of OS Cards at all. I think Rowling has every right to "fight" for what she believes is a legitimate claim. And Card's "ego" is every bit as big as Rowlings. As for originality how many works are the results of the same set of character circumstance's ?
Most of the major fantasy writers of the last 40 or 50 years can set claim to the same set up as both Card and Rowlings characters. Of course this is all IMHO...

CommanderROR · 05-02-2008, 07:20 PM

@evil_bunny

good point about the missing citations...if this is true (and I must assume that it is) then I can understand what this is about...

About the Charity stuff...I must admit that I could't care less about how much (if any) some millionaire gives to charity. I can also state that, were I a billionare, I would not give a single cent to charity. The whole concept is deeply flawed in my opinion...and most of the money (and this is unfortunately a fact for most of the big charities) goes into the hands of the people managing the money anyway...the rest probably keeping the richt in the rich countries rich...

Never mind...I won't go down that road now. So, whatever Mrs- Rowling does with her money is none of my business. All I'm interested in is what truely went on here and whether it is "legal" to allow a website but forbid a printed version of that website...

Lobolover · 05-02-2008, 07:22 PM

I think if she allowed it apearing to a wide variety (much wider then a book can ever be) of people-is she upset she won't get money of the book,cause that's the only thing I can think of.

JeffElkins · 05-03-2008, 11:25 AM

Does anyone really think that this fannish Lexicon will have any serious effect on the sales of a Rowling-authored HP encyclopedia?

05-02-2008, 01:53 PM	#39
evil_bunny Enthusiast Posts: 41 Karma: 10 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: SoCal, US Device: Kobo Aura, Sony T1, iPhone 5S, iPad 3rd Gen	Orson Scott Card believes many things I don't agree with First off, I'm guilty of not reading his post. So perhaps he knows things that I don't, but I rather doubt that. I've been tracking the specifics of the trial through news outlets, such as those from the Harry Potter fandom, the Leaky Cauldron. The matter at hand is not that you can't create derivative works, because there are many books of scholarly analysis of the Harry Potter books. Please go to your local Borders and ask one of the booksellers there to help you. If they can't / don't / won't I'm sorry. The matter at hand is that 91% (a figure from sworn testimony provided in the trial) of the book was lifted directly from the text in the books, without proper citations. If you recall in school, teachers would allow you to quote from other sources, but only if you managed to cite? This book did not provide the citations. Offers have been made to allow the book to be published, if the author would simply rewrite the text in his own words (or provide sufficient citations) however such requests have been refused. The book was rushed to try and capitalize on the publication of the seventh Harry Potter book. Please note that the author is not the target of the lawsuit, as his contract shields him from liability. The publisher, RDR is the defendant. J.K. Rowling has always been very supportive of the online fan community, but the fan award should not be considered authorization for plagiarism.

05-02-2008, 03:33 PM	#41
Moonraker Addict Posts: 314 Karma: 1002965 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: UK Device: ILiad. Gen 3, PocketBook 360, Kobo Aura HD, Kindle Oasis 2	Perhaps she feels she's been "pipped at the post" because she wanted to produce her own A to Z (oops, sorry Map company didn't mean to infringe your trademark) even though I thought she told the whole world she wasn't going to write anything more to do with Harry Potter. This litigation will certainly delay Mr. VanderArk's book to give her time to produce her own. And it always irritates me that these millionaires... oops... billionaires try to earn themselves popularity by making it known that they "Donate" to charity. Considering she (allegedly) earns over £1 million every day she can well afford it. It is said she gave £22 million to Comic Relief which is admirable and must have taken her all of 3 weeks to earn it. This business leaves a nasty taste in my mouth and, will we soon have to start writing "allegedly" in our comments for fear of being sued for expressing free speech? Am I cynical? Well, yes I am, I have lived too long and seen too many actions that exploit people to be entirely trusting of human motives. Last edited by Moonraker; 05-02-2008 at 03:39 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

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

05-02-2008, 11:55 AM	#31
Lobolover Gorosei Posts: 421 Karma: 334 Join Date: Feb 2008 Device: Microsoft Word	it's just-she has more money then the queen,but she doesn't touch a penny from it to give to charity,making MORE money so that she will not have to spend.Compared to her fortune,that donation is also not wery big.I think all the popularity wasn't a good idea.

05-02-2008, 11:56 AM	#32
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Ms. Rowling has given a number of items to charity auctions in the past, and they've previously sold for a maximum of a few £10,000. This book was expected to go for £40,000 max - I suspect that nobody was more surprised than she when it attracted fierce bidding between six very determined bidders and finished up going for that price. I strongly suspect, too, that writing a book by hand involved considerably more work on her part than telling her accountant to give £x to charity. She is to be applauded for her charity work, IMHO.

05-02-2008, 12:01 PM	#34
Lobolover Gorosei Posts: 421 Karma: 334 Join Date: Feb 2008 Device: Microsoft Word	Ive seen people "playing" quiditch in real life.Honestly,there's wery litle that can surprise me,in coneciton with HP fandom.

05-02-2008, 12:41 PM	#37
Alisa Gadget Geek Posts: 2,324 Karma: 22221 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Paperwhite, Kindle 3 (retired), Skindle 1.2 (retired)	I don't think she's a luddite. I think when it got into print it entered the realm that she has to protect against to preserve her intellectual property rights. As a website she can still largely ignore it with no repercussions at this stage of the game. Bear in mind, this likely had nothing to do with Ms. Rowling getting a bee in her bonnet. She has expert legal counsel that manages this stuff for her.

05-02-2008, 02:06 PM	#40
TheLongshot Groupie Posts: 190 Karma: 7758 Join Date: Nov 2007 Device: Sony Reader	I read Neil Gaiman's comments on this, and it seems to be a potential grey area in copyright law. Does the work in question have enough unique effort in it to qualify as a new work? Certainly, the work to put together the lexicon is not trivial. The question is, is it enough? I don't begrudge Rowling at all for this, because it is well within her rights. It is her franchise and in her best interests to protect it. Jason

05-02-2008, 03:43 PM	#42
wmrawls Connoisseur Posts: 63 Karma: 20 Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rock Hill,SC Device: Sony PRS 505, Dell Axim X50V	I am not a big fan of OS Cards at all. I think Rowling has every right to "fight" for what she believes is a legitimate claim. And Card's "ego" is every bit as big as Rowlings. As for originality how many works are the results of the same set of character circumstance's ? Most of the major fantasy writers of the last 40 or 50 years can set claim to the same set up as both Card and Rowlings characters. Of course this is all IMHO...

05-02-2008, 07:20 PM	#43
CommanderROR eink fanatic Posts: 2,022 Karma: 4924 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Germany Device: STAReBOOK, iRex Iliad, Sony 505, Kindle 2	@evil_bunny good point about the missing citations...if this is true (and I must assume that it is) then I can understand what this is about... About the Charity stuff...I must admit that I could't care less about how much (if any) some millionaire gives to charity. I can also state that, were I a billionare, I would not give a single cent to charity. The whole concept is deeply flawed in my opinion...and most of the money (and this is unfortunately a fact for most of the big charities) goes into the hands of the people managing the money anyway...the rest probably keeping the richt in the rich countries rich... Never mind...I won't go down that road now. So, whatever Mrs- Rowling does with her money is none of my business. All I'm interested in is what truely went on here and whether it is "legal" to allow a website but forbid a printed version of that website...

05-02-2008, 07:22 PM	#44
Lobolover Gorosei Posts: 421 Karma: 334 Join Date: Feb 2008 Device: Microsoft Word	I think if she allowed it apearing to a wide variety (much wider then a book can ever be) of people-is she upset she won't get money of the book,cause that's the only thing I can think of.

05-03-2008, 11:25 AM	#45
JeffElkins Guru Posts: 780 Karma: 1416 Join Date: Jan 2008 Device: Kobo Clara 2E/HD, Kindle PW	Does anyone really think that this fannish Lexicon will have any serious effect on the sales of a Rowling-authored HP encyclopedia?

Advert

Advert