[Copied over from my blog site]
Just as in Prince Hamlet's Denmark, there is something rotton in the state of copyright law.
The victory of J.K. Rowling in her copyright case - see here - is disturbing.
The reference book in question does not copy lengthy passages from Rowling's works. Instead the book provides an informative reference work based on a collaborative website.
But J.K. Rowling wanted to use the law to ban the book, and she has (so far) succeeded.
In my opinion, this is an abuse of copyright law. If cases like this succeed then copyright law, at least in the United States, is as in dire need of reform as their tort (ie, personal injury) law.
I like the Harry Potter novels. I have read them all. The last few I have bought and read on the day of publication. I am not one of those who sneer at her readable style or anguish at her commercial success. She deserves every penny she has earned from the novels.
(Indeed, in Sirius Black, she has created an ideal godfather that those - like me - who are destined only ever to be godfathers can hope to achieve.)
The Harry Potter works are good stuff, and such an original creation warrants legal protection, but Rowling's intellectual property rights should not extend too far.
But they have done on this occasion.
A reference book about the world of Harry Potter should not be within the scope of her copyright protection. If it is, then there is no reason in principle why any copyrighted work should not be protected from being the subject of a reference work.
A reference work, by its very nature, needs to expressly refer to elements of the original text.
And it is no excuse - no excuse at all - for Rowling to witter on that she wanted to do such a reference book herself, with the proceeds "going to charity". (Or is that "charidee"? ) The fact that her exploitation of any copyright will go to a certain end does not logically confer to her a prior copyright.
As Prince Hamlet's mate Macbeth almost said: "Is this a gross abuse of copyright law I see before me?"
It's not like Harry Potter owes anything to Timothy Hunter in Neil Gaiman's 'Books of Magic'...
I like the HP series too, although I do cringe somewhat at Rowling's prose. Her plotting is great, and she's achieved what many writers can only dream of by creating so many memorable characters, but I do wish she'd lay off with the adverbs a bit -
"Look over there" said Harry excitedly.
"What is it?" said Ron breathlessly.
"Another royalty cheque" said Joanne unsurprisingly.
As the world's greatest John Constantine fan, I must concur! Constantine would be an even better model for a godfather than Sirius Black...Originally Posted by SimonC
It's not like Harry Potter owes anything to Timothy Hunter in Neil Gaiman's 'Books of Magic'...
This exchange reminds me of Jasper Carrot's brilliant take on the dialogue in Magic Roundabout - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00WZ2pFynA
Rowling has certainly read Lord of the rings and 'The Hobbit as well and dare I say "Star Wars" - where a youngster has to learn to use the force....
I don't see anything truly original in it.
It's more a case of 'new light through old windows' - and the correct timing of it.
Just my opinion of course
I like the 'new light through old windows' take on it. Nice light, and nice windows, though.
Jack - am interested in knowing if you've read the suppressed book, and if not, how you know what it contains?
I could say that about anything going back to Greek literature and the only reason I can't say anything about Greek literature is I don't know anything about the literature before that. Everything has a basis in something earlier you can say there is nothing original about any of the books you mentioned with equal validity.Rowling has certainly read Lord of the rings and 'The Hobbit as well and dare I say "Star Wars" - where a youngster has to learn to use the force....
I don't see anything truly original in it.
It's more a case of 'new light through old windows' - and the correct timing of it.
Just my opinion of course
its a question about the degree of overlap - as far as I can see there is nothing particularly original in JK's work. While many ideas may not be new - we are all capanble of providing novel insight or a new take on an old issue. It was an opportunity lost by her I feel.
You also ignored my point about timing - the thurst for this stuff seems to be on a cycle....remember Lord of the Rings (the book)?
Of course literary originality is hard to define and the Harry Potter books are derivative (as much of the Jennings books methinks as of escapist fantasy). But they are fine children's books.
Jack is also right about the nonsense of the copyright decision.
..and according to my son (who understands this stuff) greek comedy is just a load of scatalogical humour - knob jokes as the boy puts it. So nothing's changed at all.
Two words....Phillip Pullman.... Far superior..IMO
Blerg, can't stand Pullman. Too much ripped off CS Lewis (Perilandra esp) despite being the opposite philosophy.
Diana Wynne Jones is the thinking kid's fantasy author.
NOTHkid's fantasy
Meh, prefer Garth Nix myself, the Sabriel series or Kenneth Opel for his 'Boys Own' steampunk Airborn & Skybreaker
Re: On J.K. Rowling's Awfully Bad Copyright Victory
By quoting from your post, am I breaching your the copyright on your opinions?
NoBy quoting from your post, am I breaching your the copyright on your opinions?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks