Slashdot Mirror
Tanya Grotter and the Magic Double Bass
Slate has a piece about Harry Potter and copyright worldwide that is a disguised call for copyright reform. Well written, well argued, extremely good argument, won't be picked up anywhere else.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
And aren't parodies are a protected form of speech?
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
It's pretty sad. Rowling always said she would NEVER sell the rights to Harry Potter. Now if you look at he books, there's a small message on the copyright page saying that Time Warner own the rights to all the character names and likenesses.
The fact she's an unmitigated sellout aside, Rowling (I have no problem with people making money from their creations, but do NOT take the moral high ground and say you'll never sell the rights, then in the same breath be a media whore who gives their soul to the nearest media behemoth), along with Time-Warner, are becoming cease-and-desist junkies of the highest order. MANY fansites are being shut down.
" In something of a departure, Harry's Belarussian clone wields a grenade launcher and re-fights the White Russian wars"
Now that's a Harry Potter I can identify with more!
graspee
...won't be picked up anywhere else.
Um, anywhere else, like Slashdot? Huh?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Who wants to see Harry turned into a hairy troll or forced to gallivant with foreign literary figures? I DO I DO!! LIke the top poster and the article mention, these aren't copies of Harry Potter and Rowlings case is weak.
Won't be picked up anywhere else? This article has been on the front page of msn.com all day Friday.
Overall, I found the article somewhat weak. While the author made some very good specific points, he often harped about the quality of the localised ripoffs. Specifically, the author referred to the original as "superior" to the localised versions which incorporated a culture's own mythology and history.
Having written a large number of editorial articles in the past, I think I understand where this author is coming from. The author may be attempting to appeal to those who are staunch (some might say zealous) supporters of the Harry Potter and its creator Rowling by appealing to their vanity.
Unfortunately, I think the tradeoff wasn't worth it. The end result is that anybody *rational* who reads it (anybody who can understand the innate quality and indeed superiority of characters adapted to the mythos, legends, and history of a given community) will see this HUGE flaw in logic and will doubt the rest of the article.
I know I do, myself - even though after careful examination I agree with his specific points, I wish such careful examination wasn't required.
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
"Amazon.com: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - $19.99"
Entitled Harry Boffer and the Philander's Stones...
Eat recycled food - it's good for the environment, and OK for you.
Art which uses found objects, cultural references, preexisting stories may be protected under the fair use doctrine.
To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)
more here
--Stephen
Picking up news stories declared as copyright violations.
It has to be said: if McDonald's had patented, trademarked or copyrighted the 'plastic burger joint', they'd be suing Burger King and Wendy's, and never mind the competitive market...
It also has to be said, that if Rowling has registered "Harry Potter" as a trademark, then she has to fight anyone diluting that trademark. Just like anyone else defending their trademarks - defend it or lose it.
I'm afraid those words in that order are property of 20th Century Fox...sir.
This article is just weak. First off, it makes the argument that the ripoff works are okay because, while they may tarnish the characters, to block them would be some sort of crime against a free market. Then right at the end, the author suddenly decided to talk about parody, but actually admits that the copycat works are not works of parody. The 2 Live Crew analogy is particularily terrible, it's the writer's way of framing the issue beside a case that everyone agrees on, but it really has nothing to do with the books in question.
If this was about the publishers attacking small fan-fiction sites, that'd be one thing, but this is a case of people making millions and millions of dollars by copying (no, not always word for word, but stealing characters, etc. is still stealing), in a pure act of commerce. You can hate JK Rowling for being rich and blocking these books, but you at least have to credit her for caring about the books, the people the article is defending are pure commercial opportunists.
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
This is just stupid. Clearly, something needs to be done about copyright laws. Save Tanya Grotter!
I encourage you all to email, fax, or snail-mail your WTO representative and have them raise this important issue at their next meeting.
Remember, we live in a democracy, and policy makers are there to represent the people, not just wealthy business interests. Contact your WTO representative now!
On the one hand, I think that anyone who wants to publish a 'Star Trek' or 'Star Wars' book should be required to ok it first with the owners of those franchises.
BUT....
If I want to write a sci-fi which takes place in a future 'confederation' with an egotistical Captain 'Church', and a navigation officer called 'Prok' who is annoyingly logical, well that should be ok.
No-one is going to mistake it for the original, but by using some of the same background, I ease the readers immersion into the story, and possibly extend the original in interesting ways.
Note: This is what the Potter books already do, they're based on any number of Boys Own Adventure stories, where 3 or so schoolfriends have all sorts of adventures while dodging crotchety old school-masters, etc.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
She is very forthright about stopping any commercial derivitive works of what she has written. However, her own books are riddled with concepts, story ideas and such things from mythologoy and history. I'm certain there is as much influence from historical literary ideas in Rowling's works as there is of Rowling's works in this Tanya Grotter.
The "philosopher's stone" is not exactly an original concept.
(Though I must admit I'd find it hard to not consider Tanya a copy considering the "Grotter" has been morthed on the front cover to look suspiciously like "Potter".
JK Rowling trying to prevent people stealing her ideas? Harry Potter is the most derivative piece of fiction I've seen. I mean 'the Dark Side', kid with unknown Force/magical powers living with his aunt/uncle who happens to be really good on an x-wing/broomstick. If Voldemort turns out to be Harry's father, George Lucas should sue.
I've actually been looking for a translation of this for a while now, but thus far no luck. I do wish the publishers the best and I hope someone will produce a translation even if, for no other reason, than simply to throw mud in the eye of the great AOL.
BTW there have been three radio broadcasts from this series. You perhaps can't yet read Tanya in the US, but you can at least enjoy the radio shows...
or just use the themes and ideas of Potter (as in Tanya Grotter's case)
How can you copyright themes and ideas? Does all future fantasy work now violate their copyright? There's nothing totally original and new there. I don't see a problem as long as its not using the character names or trademarks, or claim to be written by Rowling, or if the author has Harry Potter in one hand and a pen in the other. How many works were "inspired" by Tolkien? If its just a little *too* close, go ahead and sue. But I dunno how someone fighting with a grenade launcher infringes on Harry Potter.
"...the Trade Related International Property treaty..."
Heh, how ironic. I guess it certainly has turned out to be a bad TRIP for the chinese and russian publishers.
By reading this comment, you immediately waive any and all rights regarding it.
Basically, the Potter books aren't 100% original, nor are they as well written as their predecessors. They all have a very linear plot with Harry in every scene - compare The Two Towers where there are three simultaneous stories- and they're relentlessly literal where they could be surreal. Masefield's stuff is amazingly surreal, but then he *was* Poet Laureate.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
He first ignores the difference between inspired by and derivative works, lumping in Tonya Grotter (which with the data given may or may not be a derivative work) with Harry Potter in Calcutta.
Second, he doesn't consider any of the logical consequences of ending derivative work protection, except for a brief consideration of movie rights.
For example, if international copyright is changed to allow Harry Potter in Calcutta, certainly there's no obvious reason why an unauthorized Harry Potter in New York shouldn't be similarly allowed. Or an alternate Harry Potter 6 book, for that matter.
Translations are derivative works, not the original; all translation is paraphrase. Should a translation of a Rowling Harry Potter into French not pay royalties to her? How about a mere English-languge paraphrase?
Similarly, a movie of the first Harry Potter is not a copy of the book but just a derivative work, and any other version of the film shot by a different studio isn't a copy, either. Should Disney be allowed to suddenly start making its own Harry Potter films based directly on the books?
Moron. He doesn't even raise the questions.
is so much better than a McD Burger.
threadeds blog
1) Read the copywrite page again.
The images and characters are owned by warner brothers (which in turn are a subsidiary of Time-Warner, but saying that Time-Warner owns it is still imprecise), but the books are publishing rights are owned by the publishing company.
2) Where would we be without the Shannara books? Tolkien didn't publish enough for the voracious readers and we wanted more in the same genre that was invented by those books!
The same can be said for the original sword & sorcery books created by the Conan the Barbarian series (which actually generously allowed many authors to write books on it), and the spy novels that started with the James Bond books (yes, they were books first).
Do you think that this is any different? People want more than seven books! Sure, those seven will be revered and treasured, but we want MORE books about ordinary kids doing magic.
Killing off the "copies" will obviously be doing the world a great disservice.
Well...mostly. I'm sure that there are some porn-related Harry Potter knock-offs that don't exactly scream good literature.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
The fact this character is an invention of someone else's fantasy (a russian man writing about a girl instead of a british woman writing about a boy) means the characters, even in the overlap, will not be the same.
The girl could have been given any (more dissimilar) name at all and there would have been little anyone could do to stop the publication. Clearly the issue isn't with someone writing a parody, but only with someone besides AOL profiting from that parody. And in that regard, I call shenanigans!
Yes they are....
"It's pretty sad. Rowling always said she would NEVER sell the rights to Harry Potter. Now if you look at he books, there's a small message on the copyright page saying that Time Warner own the rights to all the character names and likenesses."
She didn't sell the rights to the books (IIRC), only to the "names and likenesses," which was probably a mandatory step moving it into the movie industry, having action figures, &c. She probably didn't want to deal with all of the paperwork of subcontracting each individual entity for these things (a company to make toys, &c) and it may have been a mandatory, and not terribly offensive part of the deal for her.
Looking at my copy of Book 4 (I don't have book 5 on hand) it says, in the jacket:
"Text copyright © 2000 by J.K. Rowling"
Thus, I would say calling her an "unmitigated sellout" is probably a bit harsh.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
you know michael... it doesn't seem to be a call for copyright reform (LITERARY copyright reform if anything) so much as a defense of the parody.
... nope, this is mostly a defence of the right to mock. the article concludes with the following (and i paraphrase): "the ripoffs aren't really making that much money! and besides, they're just parodies!" it fails to manage any real defence of the books that appropriate the Harry Potter character itself. saying, as the author does, that the foreign bootlegs are like cheap imitation chinese walkmans misses the point: the Harry Potter world is being invaded, its characters tarnished, the brand confused, etcetera. i don't really give a damn about Harry Potter or the books (never read one), but this seems like an example of copyright law put to good use more than anything. the issue of parody is another matter. the author manages to intertwine the issues in a weak attempt to make his dubious point.
it says nothing damning about the usual copyright issues that set slashdot aflutter (code, genetics, technology, music/record labels, etc etc.) when i first glanced at the header i thought this was going to be something more like this. so i guess it's the word harry potter makes this nerd news (?!?)
in any case
...it still propagates what I perceive to be a very big misconception about what copyright is really for. The Constitution of the United States, in the copyright clause, has specifically stated that the purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts", not specifically to provide authors like J.K. Rowling with an incentive to continue writing. Richard M. Stallman (whatever you may think of him) explains this very well in this article. Copyright law is not a monopoly granted by a (responsible) government in an attempt to strike a balance between the rights of authors and rights of the public, but rather as an attempt to balance two different, sometimes conflicting rights of the public: the public wants a lot of good quality works for its consumption, and the public also wants these works to be available at low cost. Stallman makes a nice analogy between this dilemma and that of building public works projects like buildings and dams. For public works, a government would want to build the best and safest public works, while at the same time it wouldn't want to spend too much money to do so. Nobody will build a bridge or dam for free, of course, so the government then has to decide how much money it is willing to spend for the public's welfare. For copyright legislation, the government is not spending public money, but the public's rights and freedoms.
Well, the United States government has done, with the current travesties of law like the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and the DMCA, the equivalent of having contractors build a bridge that totally covers the river. And worse yet, it is attempting to wrestle other countries into making similar laws apply there as well, under the pretext of protecting international trade.
Yes, copyright law all over the world is in bad need of reform, but without remembering its original purpose for existing in the first place. Authors are granted these copyright monopolies not because they were the original creators of the work and they are entitled to it, but because it is supposed to serve the public interest. A lot of the misapplications of copyright restrictions mentioned in the article mainly boil down to violations of this principle.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
... and then there are re-labeled rip-offs. Yes, Rowling's work may be deriviative and all fiction works on inspiration from what has gone before it, but names like "Tanya Grotter" (and even naming a book "Harry Potter" when it has no connection to the author) is just trading off the name of her work.
This has nothing to do with copyright reform - the authors of these new books are trading off Harry Potter by slightly changing the name and keeping all the magic and other elements of the book in it. It's not like they're even trying to be different. If they wrote a book about a magician but was different in other ways you could say that 'magic' was in vogue, and it is OK. But is seems like these people are just ripping off quite a lot and writing some stories for the cash.
I don't even like the argument about local market conditions. Harry Potter books are popular everywhere. People love 'Harry Potter'. So people churn out these knock-off books. If the authors wanted to write for the local market I'm sure they could easily make up their own stories but again the just rip-off works just to get the cash.
(As you can tell by now) I don't agree with the author of the article at all. He just wants a cheap argument to allow author's who have no creative insight in the least to get rich off the hard work of others. If the authors stuck to fan-fiction they would probably get my sympathy. But whoring cash for when they have no talent - I hope they burn (metaphorically of course!).
For those not initiated into the wonders of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, the original quote is:
"Let A Hundred Flowers Bloom and A Hundred Schools of Thoughts Contend"
More information can be found here in section 2.
(note: the author of this post is not and never has been a Maoist)
guys and girls: get a fucking life will ya.
... is how the current copyright system evolved.
Is it only me who see it influenced mainly by national political interests?
First, the U.S. were not very aware of copyright issues, having not a law like the europeans (according to the article). Probably the euros tried hard to prevent other countries from stealing intellectual property. Now it is the western world preventing poorer countries to do that (with the U.S. at the forefront!)
I feel confirmed in thinking that these IP laws (copyright, patents etc.) are founded by hypocritical arguments.
While I understand you are aiming for humor, I'm getting mildly sick of seeing this kind of comparison: You can turn almost any work into almost any other work by abstracting it sufficiently.
/landspeeder/ at first (x-wings come later) and he is skilled at racing his friends.
/in no way used each other/ as sources.
For instance, lets take the early Star Wars universe (neglecting, for a moment, the movie Hidden Fortress) and Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.
Both deal with a small group of individuals (bussinessmen or the rebel alliance) who split off from society and form their own communities which are being hunted by the predominant governments in their areas and fighting back against them. The dark side in each story has developed a superweapon (Xylophone/Death Star) which can obliterate large areas (cities/planets) and have a host of other similarities (both employ torture on the heroes!)
Let's also take a look at your x-wing/broomstick comparison. In the radio drama, where Luke's skill is really demonstrated, it is with a
Now lets compare with Harry, who is more like a very talented soccer player. It makes a lot of sense, considering Harry's world, that they would have at least one sport played on brooms (and brooms are an old throw-in here from other legends &c). Thus, if Harry is going to be a natural at that sport, then he is going to have to be a natural on the broom.
It should also be noted that Luke is portrayed as being more than slightly reckless with his landspeeder in order to get an edge in racing. Harry is *not*.
This is just a start, there are a *lot* of other problems with the Harry--Star Wars match-up. Saying that they have some base similarities is true, but that can be said of many things that
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
i will write about:
..."3" and a run at the california governorship.
the rick "bermanator 2"
and there's room for a
----
http://www.hellection.com
How can adults be so obsessed with this Harry Potter phenomenon? It's not bad as childrens fiction comes (though Rowling is certainly no Roald Dahl) but I really can't see how it could appeal to people past their early teens...
Tanya Grotter is just a parody.
Another nice example of parody is russian "translation" of "Two Towers" movie made by Goblin. In fact, it is mostly new text, which looks like typical russian criminal story. All characters became criminals or soldiers from Russia and nearby countries. Original soundtrack is partially replaced by popular russian and other (Rammstein, Deep Purple etc.) songs.
We (Russians) find it really funny. Virtually everybody likes this "translation", although few of us have seen original "two towers".
If somebody wants to see what it looks like (or sounds like) drop me a line: dimss TA solutions D lv.
wouldn't we prefer work that was a product of someones talent rather than someones ability to rip off someone else??? Granted, there is a grey area in the middle but when something is obviously a rip off, why should it be tolerated? Just my 2p.
Was I the only one who saw the headline and wondered if Mike Gordon had written a parody childrens book? Now if only he would, and I could get my hands on a copy! Wait, back on topic... Whether any of the spin-offs are parodies or just reinterpretations which are not protected doesn't change much. It will be a fight for lawyers and Time-Warner has many many rich lawyers that will get this resolved in their favor. I am worried at how quickly the american fervor over 'Intellectual Property' becomes a matter of beating your competition in any venue other than the commercial one. And yet, how many people the world over would be willing to not purchase a copy of the next Harry Potter book in order to actually vote with their coin and force the evil corporations to take note that evil will not be tolerated?
Fnord.sig
(1) Find a Good Idea.
(2) Take the idea to it's logical conclusion.
(3) Get bored with it.
(4) Sell out.
(5) Find next new Good Idea.
(6) Goto 2.
This all assumes point 4 ('Selling Out') will allow you to *improve* your options in life and what you do for a living.
Go for it. I respect anyone who holds onto their principals, but I don't blame you if you do otherwise. If you're truly worth it, more fresh ideas will come easily.
Where are all of the "In Soviet Russia" jokes? You'd think a story like this'd be just loaded with them..
Lawrence Lessig's comments on lawyers and comics seem relevant here. Or rather here.
In short, Lessig argues that the harm done by fan fiction is at least in some cases a fiction created by lawyers who don't necessarily have their clients' interests in mind.
Part of the problem is that Rowling has to balance both the game in her world for the audiences in her world and for /her/ audience (i.e., us).
She indicated that games of Quidditch often take hours and can take days (if memory serves she said one Quidditch World Cup game lasted 4 *days*). This would give a little more opportunity for either or both sides to get a 150 point lead (perhaps it is still not enough, but as you said: Rowling is a storyteller, not a game theorist). The length of time before the snitch is caught can help balance out the game.
Then she has to balance out what we are willing to read through. She wants to describe the action in Quidditch and give us a fast-paced feel for it, but she can't really do that if the game lasts too long. She tries to describe Harry's thoughts and follow the character through the game, but how long would we be willing to put up with that if the game lasted 12 hours?
So its somewhat likely that there are multiple issues involved in trying to balance the entire mess.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
They said "...while the case for copyright is strong..."
I would argue that the case for copyright is not strong. Rather, the case for copyright is accepted as the norm, but there have been much better cases against the copyright.
That is, for every claim made in favor of copyright, there is a counterargument that decimates it. Meanwhile, copyright is an infringement against a natural right, the right to work. Normally, if there are no good arguments for an infringement against a natural right, then it is a very bad idea to infringe on it.
In reality, I think the reason for the copyright is that large companies with influence want it.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I've been planning on writing someting about just this subject for a while. This is the natural situation, if you think about creativity.
How does creative stuff happen? Some author or musician or whatever really digs something, and feels inspired, and writes something that features all the stuff he digs.
You might create a ripping bluegrass tune in the style of Flatt and Scrugs, or if you're Mr. Bungle, mix surf music with death metal. If you're a writer, maybe you will create an epic like the great Finnish epics, only set in a world of your own creation, or maybe a world where the ancient Greek gods are all immortal personifications, updated for the modern age. Maybe you'll write a story where refugees from Troy found the Roman empire. Maybe you'll write a story about a nerdy boy who becomes a great magician, but who doesn't fight the demon Barbatos and an evil possible future version of himself.
In the days before oppressive copyright, this was the norm. The world of fiction was a big pot of cool stuff and everyone worked out of it. To this day, the rich mythical history of past civilizations shape our current world.
Terry Pratchett said this, and I think it's interesting:
'Books in a genre may well remind you of other books in that genre. This is allowed. If it wasn't, H G Wells would have been the only person permitted to write about time machines. Being a fantasy writer is like being allowed to sit around a big bubbling pot, a stew made up of everything that's gone before. You're allowed to take a certain amount of stuff out, and you don't object if it turns out that you're putting stuff in, too. And so the stew bubbles on. There are only two crimes: one is to claim that the pot is yours, and that the other is to claim that there is no pot.'
He wasn't talking about taking specifics like Harry Potter's name and rough history, but such distinctions are slight and, in my opinion, completely unimportant.
I cant think of any instrument more painful to ride then a flying double bass. Sitting on the strings, Painful. On the Back there is noting good to hold on to. Oh You definitely don't want to sit on the pin on the bottom I guess the side may be the best place. But with the strings on it you would sit on it crooked, the bridge is about 7" and the neck will be at an angle when you grab it. I think I will wait for the flying Harp or the Flying Piano-Forte, The Flying Tuba may make be good. I think a Flying Cello may work a bit better. But a Double Bass No Way, Ill just stick to playing it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
A somewhat relevant essay comes to mind. Read Julio H. Cole.
2) Where would we be without the Shannara books?
Better off? Yes, the influence of Tolkien is hard to avoid today, but did the world really need a series that was so close to the original that a one-for-one mapping of characters was possible?
This reminds me strongly of a certain arrangement that has arisen in Japanese Manga - amateurs, fans, and even other professionals will create manga that is technically copyright infringing (they use the same characters and settings, for example), but is considered allowable because it can sometimes further the original story and push the original creator on to new ideas.
--- Bwah?
Are you saying that they are actually going to make 7 of these movies. I mean, I liked the first two movies myself, but I think this whole thing is going to get a little tired after movie 4 or 5. Seems to me like Time Warner took her for a ride by saying they could make 7 movies off the books. I think that's about the most they ever could make, any more would just be stupid. Put simply, Time warner has pretty much bought rights to all the Harry Potter movies that are ever going to be made.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I find it interesting that the community is shocked when power prevails over ideals such as justice and fairness.
Is this the only country with the cultural myth that power somehow favors morality? Power always wins! Duh! The only question is, how much power does morality have?
"Won't be picked up anywhere else"
C 12PO
Then why did I read it on msnbc.com last night?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/932117.asp?0dm=
"The misguided global crackdown on Potter Rip-offs"
Granted, it does say slate.com under the header, but it is still what I would call someplace else.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
I thought copyright only protected the embodiments and expressions of ideas, and not the ideas themselves. Didn't the Supreme Court specifically state that in the Eldred vs. Ashcroft case?
So id should sue all first-person shooters even though they wrote their own separate 3D engine? And Marvel should be able to legitimately sue anybody who writes a story about a man who becomes purple and muscular when he is happy? Ridiculous. Copyright was not meant to protect all likenesses and concepts of a work.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Adults who read it in public should be shot.
ITS FOR CHILDREN YOU HYPE SUCKERS!
For one, I think this article is a pretty clear and convincing call for copyright reform, not a disguised one, and I personally agree with it wholeheartedly.
The fast-food reference has eerie connotations: "You could say that Burger King and Wendy's stole the idea of a fun, plastic burger joint from McDonald's and are unfairly profiting from their evil deed." Well, yes you could say that, and under today's American patent system the courts would probably rule in your favor. If McDonalds were a new business they could call dibs on the idea of a fun, plastic burger joint, and those other entrepreneurs, --oops, I mean "Pirates", would have to pay hefty licensing fees and huge settlements.
Finally, it probably isn't fair to attach Rowling to the international slapdown of Potter clones. Since Time Warner owns the rights to the franchise, it's a pretty good bet that their legal dept is entirely responsible and Rowling herself is completely out of that loop. But like the Deatheaters in Rowling's books, brave little boys in suits like to hide in the shadows.
stupid fags who modded this down have no sense of humor, obviously.
The historical context of US copyright enforcement was also nice. I did not know that Franklin was a "Pirate", though I knew he was a publisher. Nor did I know that Dickens was widely "Pirated" in the US and that US laws alowed this, though I have read choice quotes from judges about US Citens not being bound by forgien copyright laws. Perspective like helps to chip away at the propaganda of absolute morality put out by big publishers. There's nothing moral about a lie and that's what big publishers are all about these days.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
In all seriousness, when someone comes upon a good concept, its inevitable that others are going to follow suit. It would be one thing if they were reprinting unauthorized copies of her book...
Sounds to me like they're creating similar books, with similar storylines that are geared more towards their culture.
I say that it's horseshit, horseshit, horseshit! And for those of you who don't know what horseshit is, thats the shit that comes from a horse.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Meanwhile, in Russia, you can still meet Harry's Slavic twin: "Tanya Grotter," star of Tanya Grotter and the Magic Double Bass. Tanya rides a double bass, sports a mole instead of a bolt of lightning, and attends the Tibidokhs School of Magic.
And, quote from The Observer:
In a move that has taken the Russian pirate disk world by storm and infuriated traditionalists and copyright lawyers, Puchkov has completely changed the script, turning the 'good' characters, like Frodo, into bumbling Russian cops, and the 'bad' Orcs into Russian gangsters.
The new, irreverent version of The Lord of the Rings is set in Russia. Frodo Baggins is renamed Frodo Sumkin (a derivative from the Russian word sumka, or bag). The Ranger, Aragorn, is called Agronom (Russian for farm worker). Legolas is renamed Logovaz, after a Russian car company famed for its Ladas. Boromir becomes Baralgin, after a Russian type of paracetemol.
Gandalf spends much of the film trying to impress others with his in-depth knowledge of Karl Marx, and Frodo is cursed with the filthy tongue of a Russian criminal.
Gendalf is actually a Pendalf, where PENDAL is a jargon equivalent for English "ass kick".
PS ;)
Of course, I'm Russian.
It has to be said: if McDonald's had patented, trademarked or copyrighted the 'plastic burger joint', they'd be suing Burger King and Wendy's, and never mind the competitive market...
... however, clearly now that they have been extended to life+70 years for artists, and 95 years for corporate "art", any such balance in the tradeoff has been lost.
While you cannot 'copyright' the idea of running a burger joint, ever since the 1980s you've been able to patent it under US Patent law.
Fortunately for burger lovers everywhere, McDonalds, Burger King, et al (i.e. the fast food business model) predates that appallingly ill-concieved change in patent law, and so we do have a competative marketplace in that regard.
However, as eBay and others have shown, we are now facing at least a generation or longer of time where the most innovative and promising approaches to business will enjoy little or no competition as a direct result of allowing said business models to be patented for 20 years (and probably extended to other areas when they expire, allowing them to last even longer).
Goodbye free market.
Copyright destroys competative markets as well. It has been judged, rightly or wrongly, that this is an acceptable tradeoff to allow authors and other artists to work full time on their craft, rather than being forced to hold down a day job at the same time. Perhaps this was true when copyrights lasted 14 years
We should have Harry Potter knockoffs, just as we have JRR Tolkien knockoffs (Eddings, etc.), and just as we have Gibson knockoffs (indeed, he created the cyberpunk genre). This is how an innovative series of books leads to entire genres of fiction, creating entire new markets. JK Rowling is a greedy, shortsighted ass to do this, but more importantly, copyright is a dysfunctional, destructive, negative-sum system in its current form. Indeed, any system that preemtively destroys entire genres of literature or entire new markets just to protect the profitability of one work is inherently negative-sum, destructive to everyone. This is true of patents (and epitomized by patents on software, mathematics, and business models), and it is true of copyright in its current excessive form.
So, lest we dismiss the example the article's author gave initially, under our current regime of laws, if McDonalds came into being today, there would be no Burger King, for at least 20 years, possibly longer. And if JRR Tolkien were written today, much of the fantasy literature of the world would likewise be banned (remember, even 30 years ago copyright wasn't nearly as draconian as it is today).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If Rowlings does have a contract that limits WB to seven movies then more power to her.
Just think of another famous literary figure who has founded a movie dynasty that has spanned nearly 40 years and 20 movies. (Can you say "Bond, James Bond"?) Of course, Ian Fleming did not have nearly so much control over what the production company did (being dead kind of limits your creative input). At any rate after they ran out of book titles to use for movie titles, they used the titles of the Bond short stories and then they just kind of degenerated into making movies using characters from the books. (Hint, "Moonraker" had nothing to do with with invisible space stations, fleets of space shuttles, or a plot to create the perfect society by killing off everyone living *on* Earth at the time)
I can just see WB thinking ahead ten years to when Harry is all grown up. We could be subjected to a whole slew of "Hary Potter: Secret (M)agent Man" movies. Harry would be the debonair secret agent with a license to "wave his wand". Ron Weasly's dad would play the part of "M", and his sister could play Moneypenny. Hermione would take on the role of "Q". Voldemort would take the place of Blofeld. J-Lo would be the... ermm I'm gonna stop here, if the folks at WB want more details they are going to have to pay me.
So, if Rowlings has limited them to only seven movies, bully for her.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
In the begining there was anarchy, and it was good - all of the flourishing forms of the arts and sciences grew quickly in rich soil. Then, in the last half of the 20th century there came about agressive patent and copyright laws - extending ownership of ideas indefinitely. In the 21st century large corporations that had grown rich from the unfettered control of the ideas, began a campaign to erradicate those that would build derivative works, and those that would use protected works for 'fair use' purposes. This largely came about because of falling profit margins as a result of the economic downturn known in the history books as the 'dot-com bust'. Every penny needed to be squeezed from existing works to pay corporate dividends promised by the CEOs, in addition to lining the pockets of the CEOs themselves - in the event of layoff or failure of the business of course - heaven forbid [the CEO take responsibility for his/her actions].
In the first quarter of the 21st century innovation died, although the average person did not see it at first, behind the rhetoric of the megacorporations, who claimed that each new product they put out - and, of course, patented and controlled - was innovation itself. People finally came to the conclusion that they were being fed expensive dog food, when what they really wanted was filet mignon. Real competition died.
In the aftermath of the death of small businesses and entrepreneurs, people were stunned. They had no choices left. There was only one computer, running one operating system. One restaurant, with one menu. One store for all your needs. Prices rose. At some point the 'unwashed masses' were not able to afford the basic things the rest of us took for granted (however expensive and shoddily manufactured) - and began to riot.
Martial law was enacted by President Bush during his fourth term in office (term limitations having been removed and the 'President for Life' amendment having passed Congress with a narrow margin) in response to the rioting. The cities burned. Travel restrictions were imposed from outside nations in fear of the anarchy spreading - unfortunately, this did not work and similar riots sprang up all over the world. Fearing that the nuclear option was the only option left, the President was whisked away to his waiting flying command post. The 'cleansing' took place on the 4th day of August 2015. Small neutron bombs were deployed on all major city centers; colateral damage was unavoidable. "You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette", the Vice President said from his underground bunker in Maryland.
'Cleaning Day' (established as a holiday in later years) lead to the destabilization of the Bush presidency, and a military junta, composed of Palestinian War veterans and top generals at the Pentagon was established. Bush lived in exile in Canada to his last days. Unfortunately, the United States of America was never able to recover from the devastation, and became a second rate nation. Brazil and Mexico became the leading nations from the west. Europe also suffered as a result of its close ties to America, and while the destruction was limited, the EU also descended into third world status. Turkey, Spain and Isreal became the defacto leaders in that part of the world. Australia and China became the new super powers - both still controlling nuclear weapons - but there is little conflict between them as they both have similar goals in the Orient. India and Pakistan are 'travel ban' zones as a result of the nuclear exchange between the two powers that layed waste to much of both countries while everyone's back was turned. Estimates are it will be 10,000 years before it is safe to begin decontamination efforts in New Delhi or Karachi.
Sitting at a cafe in Rio, sipping my expresso, surfing 'elslashdot.org' on my wearable, its a wonder we are here at all.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
You know. If authors started publishing works in a GPL type of format, I think none of this would never happen. I mean think about it. I write a book. I post it to the "GPL Book Movement Website." Publishers ABC decide to run the book downloaded free via the "GPL Book Movement Website.". The books sell here in the States. Over in Russia my book is being sold by Publisher YXZ downloaded for free from "GPL Book Movement Website.". Ruskin Rusky decides he wants to make a similiar work. He relates my charector to local folklore he publishes his book on the "GPL Book Movement Website" because he has to. His book comes back to the states because fans of my book see this book and want more.
Society as whole would benefit. Screw the author. You know this isn't meant to be a troll. I was thinking how great this "GPL book thing" would be, until I started typing and it sounded trollish. Oh well.
Better register that "GPL Book Movement Website" before it gets taken.
It's very clear what the publisher of Tanya Grotter are trying to do. They have a similar character, in a broadly similar situation, and are copying the design of the Harry Potter books.
But it's not necessarily infringment.
The law draws distinct lines where there is in actuality a continuum. I can set out to copy Harry Potter, getting closer and closer by infintessimal degrees. At some point N, the Nth +1 step will take me over the line. In a court of law, I'd be entirely innocent if I published iteration N, but completely guilty if I published iteration N+1, even though each version differs from the other hardly at all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Every kid, all over the world, becoming part of American monoculture is a horrific thought. But, if you believe it will happen anyway, you might as well get on board with J.K. Rowling, et al. Why not throw away the culture of our world now, and reap the profits while we're at it...
--Jasin Natael
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
This is so ridiculous. Imagine what would happen if Paramount suddenly decided every Star Trek related story made by an outside party was no longer acceptable, was infringing on their rights, and demanded they be taken off the shelves? Not only would this be tragic, but the backlash against Paramount by fans and writers would be enormous. It's too bad the Potter cult following hasn't matured to that level yet.
I was going to post a link to this article but someone beat me to it.
Successful software companies do this, too. One company has done well with Office, a high-priced even more ridiculous parody version of its own Works, a program which is itself a joke on the oxymoronic name.
Of course, I don't have a source/link to back this up, but Newton said this specifically of another scientist of his time who was very short in stature... So it was actually an insult and through history it has become a very nice thing to say.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
This makes me wonder about the takeoffs, the publishers and how much they let others get away with.
:P
I'm not sure what's going on in Japan, but it seems the Sailor Moon hentai outnumbers the original Sailor Moon series. Seems better drawn too
Remember, an attorney will sometimes file suit on behalf of their client if they see a potential issue. I can't remember who did this a while back, but it has happened in more "high-tech" circles. I *want* to say Amazon did it, but don't quote me there. =^_^=
So the point? Even with all the press exposing this, perhaps JKR isn't completely aware of the gravity?
Weak, I know. Now here's another.
Perhaps JKR is being talked into this by her attorneys in London (or for that matter, the Warner Bros. attorneys - remember, they hold copyright as well due to the movies) and they are taking advantage of some sort of naivete on her part.
Perhaps in the end, maybe it really is an issue. Read the next paragraph for why.
The thing is, in certain circles, it is widely grokked that JKR encourages fans to write stories, within certain limits. But in the fan-fiction realm, commercial publication is largely taboo, fanzines aside. (Admit it, you too have at the very least browsed through fan-fiction of one flavor or another.) What we're seeing here with the myriad of secondary Potter stories is, for all intents, fan publication beyond the level of a zine or your various and sundry internet archives/mailing lists/whatever. Harry meeting Gandalf in China's Leopard etc. at least sounds like an example of this - like another poster said, it sounds like a D&D game. This just scratches the surface.
(Strangely enough, crossover writings are ridiculously common in fan-fiction. Anime fan-fiction *alone* has countless crossups with Ranma 1/2 and (insert favorite anime du jour here), with even the occasional Star Trek crossup, and at least one fusion with Clarke's 2001 series.)
This sig no verb.
Here's a previous Wired article about Tanya Grotter from last November.
Practically all the comments here (except "The article is lousy" (#6318621)) are based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of copyright: the notion that copyright protects the ideas (themes, style, atmosphere, characterization, etc.) embodied in a literary work. It does not. It protects only the particular embodiment of those ideas, in other words, the particular phrases and sentences that make up a work. If those are not copied (or translated*), then there is no copyright violation. The Slate article author touches on this a little, but not strongly enough.
All the long threads about derivative works, the thin line between parody and knockoff, and fair use are simply beside the point. If Tanya Grotter does not contain any of the English text of Harry Potter, or Russian translation of that text, then no copying has occurred, and thus no violation of copyright.
Derivative works include some portion or portions of the original work. In other words, they are partially copies of the original, plus some original matter. Without a license, they are generally illegal. Derivative works that parody the original have a special exemption (but it is certainly also possible to parody a work without deriving from it at all). Fair use also is a special limited license to copy. But if no copying is being done, then fair use need not be invoked.
* This actually opens up some very interesting philosophical questions related to the logical coherence of copyright laws, since given the right translation rule, any string can be translated into any other.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Rowland can copyright Harry Potter and his friends, but she cannot and should not be allowed to copyright the idea of a child wizard That concept is, itself, much borrowed from other sources. Even the story of a child wizard in a wonky wizards school has its precedents.
What comes to mind first for me is the Rincewindd character of Robert Asprin's Diskworld series.Born the 8th son of an 8th son of an 8th son, he was destined to be a great sourceror.. Unfortunately, he doesn't believe that -- and neither do most of the people who encounter him. Nontheless, he still manages to both enable and prevent vast magical goings on in his world (depending on whether they are good or bad).
The basic concept of a Harry Potter character is not original and nobody -- even (or especially) someone who has gotten fantastically rich with it should be allowed to control expressions of that basic concept.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If someone can translate Finnegans Wake into Japanese, I don't think there's much problem with Harry Potter into any other language. Or just not translate "muggle" at all. It probably has similar connotations in other languages.
I read a treatise some years ago by some economists, I think, with a historical bent. Their premise was that China at one time led the world in science and technology, only to fall behind other societies of the middle ages. The gist of their paper was their contention that China's very size and homogeneity caused it to fall behind the rest of the world. They contended that a single emperor could (and did) call for suppression of learning, burning of books, causing all of China to stagnate. The reverse was true of emerging European states -- they were small and fragmented -- not unified in any way except in their animosity towards one another. No single monarch or head of state had the power to stifle innovation. If France chose, say, to block the use of movable type (I'm using this as an example only -- no research here to say that this actually happened), Germany would/did not, leading Gutenburg to invent and refine the printing press. The authors went on to conclude that the chaos inherent in European states Vs. China enabled the Europeans to far outstrip the original cultural leader of the world.
So -- what do we moderns do?? Why we unify everything on a global scale... Does this strike anyone but me as counterproductive over the long run?
Harry: You killed my mother and father!
Voldemort: I am your mother and father.
Harry: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Wait a minute, how could you be both of my parents?
Voldemort: If only you knew the power of the Dark Side.......
"I wonder what it's like living in a constant haze of stupidity" - Hiei, Yu Yu Hakusho
I'd strongly recommend that anyone interested in fair use and derivative works should read "On Fairy Stories" by Tolkien. He was very interested in the way mythology and fairy tales developed in human cultures, and this essay analyzes how they are formed throughout the generations. Actually, Tolkien said (somewhere else, not this essay) that he hoped he was throwing more material into the collective pot of myth by writing The Lord of the Rings, and actually intended for people to write derivative works.
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
You're wrong.
In fact, you're so wrong, it's evidence that you are a servant of pure evil.
There now, does that make you feel better?
-- . . ramblin' . . .
There's a difference between parody and superficial exploitation. When someone mirrors the characters' personalities, plots, history and style, even down to phoenetic rip-offs of the characters' names, that's not art or creativity, it's blatant exploitation and dilution of carefully developed intellectual property.
It is precisely due to ripoffs like "Tanya Grotter" that copyright protections exist. Rowling worked very hard to develop her characters and her universe, and as politically-incorrect as it might seem in this forum to defend the right of anyone to claim some semblances of intellectual property control, I think it's warranted here.
What if I created a web site called, "Slashdash.org" and copied exactly the structure, look and feel and the content of site? You don't think the owners of Slashdot would be upset? Absolutely and rightly so because such an effort would be an attempt to unfairly exploit the momentum that Slashdot has gained through a lot of time and hard work.
Let's give credit where credit is due to those who either through luck, resources or hard work manage to create an institution, and don't want some noob showing up and sampling the fruits of their labor for a quick, undeserved buck.
It's interesting in regard to this debate that The Walt Disney Company, arch supporter of eternal copyrights, built their early business off of lapsed, foreign, and potentially unenforcable copyrights. Where would many companies be today if they had scrupulously respected everybody else's intellectual property rights?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Or maybe the publishers will move their incorporation to what-is-that-island where KaZaa has incorporated?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
..one might wonder. At least I did. So I looked at the url and got a shock:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084960/
Microsoft? Don't they have automatic filters to ban these kind of dangerous articles/ideas?
So it's illegal for me to write a little story about little Peter levitating on his grotty potty?
That's a total abuse of International Copyright laws.
J. K. Rowling and Bloomsbury Publishing, by their very sucess, now have zero incentive to write and publish another word, becuse they now have more money than they can possibly spend in dozens of lifetimes. Essentially I'm sure this is what cause the huge delay in bringing out the latest book. Naturally enough other authors and publishers grabbed the opportunity created by the delay. In this purportedly free world, that's fair.
Copyright, or Copywrong? The latter, surely!
> Too bad that a very long perspective in economics is non-existent. Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about. Thank god a good number of economists do. And are pushing the arguement forward. Kalin
Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro
Too many of these links state that the article referecned by the illustrious slashdot are "well-written" - they are NOT. Jeez, learn to recognize real writing ya morons.
From each according to his ability,
to each according to his need.
No-one should have a castle or a right to a castle simply because he or she hoards entire industries, possibilities or ideas for generations. Every sane person should be happy if their work can be "derived" at some point for the greater good of humanity.
Intellectual Property is little more than a scam created by the rich to keep themselves rich by controlling and owning every idea necessary for survival and happiness, and every idea that proceeds from such ideas. The IP and trademark owners don't do any of underpaid blue-collar work that goes in to making Nike shoes, printing and delivering a thick hardcover book or writing and playing music. They don't have to work. Instead, they sit in their fat leather chairs and "own" the concepts. They believe that they deserve wealth (and have the leverage to demand it) simply because they are alive.
Think about it. The knowledge of science, art, and history -- owned. The cures for AIDS and cancer, if and when they are created, and the current drugs that help to fight htem -- owned. Nearly every viable food crop of the future, even though it hasn't been planted yet -- owned. The human genome -- owned.
Get an education, you line their pockets. Get AIDS or cancer, you line thier pockets. Eat an ear of corn, you line their pockets. Be born a human, you line their pockets. And you yourself, having done all this, will die poor after having sent your insignificant little income to their overfed bank accounts all your life.
And they tell us, the people that we are "stealing" when we read a book, listen to a song, plant an ear of corn, because the very concept of these things "belongs" to them.
Sorry. We aren't stealing, we are living.
They are stealing.
I have to step in to defend the author herself. This article states that "J.K. Rowling and her publisher since J.K. Rowling and her publisher have launched an aggressive worldwide legal campaign against the unauthorized Potter takeoffs." (emphasis mine)
....Bethanie....
What this means is that the publishing company is working to preserve its rights to the characters and likenesses that it has paid Rowling the rights for. Surely the publisher is in it for the money, as well they should be. They assumed the risk when they first accepted the manuscript for publication -- and they hit the jackpot.
The publishers need to protect themselves from other commercial interests seeking to make money off of the characters that Rowling has created (at their expense).
Even if the Harry Potter series ends at Book 7, there may be a multitude of opportunities for other spin-offs. They may set another author to creating a non-Harry children's series based at Hogwarts. They could set up an adult-focused series following Harry & friends through their careers & adulthood. They could publish more of the textbooks and supplemental material mentioned in the original series. And these are just the obvious ideas. My point is that the publishers, having invested in the creation of these characters, have every right to protect their financial interests.
As far as the author's part in all this, having read quite a bit about Rowling herself, I have no doubt that she's NOT in it for the money. She has created these characters, breathed life into them, and there's no doubt that they probably mean as much to her as her own children. She has a vested interest (as their creator and mother) to protect them from being appropriated by other parties.
I think it's worth the quality control alone to keep these books and characters protected as much as possible, especially from commercial exploitation by other "authors."
from the article:
"For example, the princess we know as Cinderella originally hails from China, where she goes by the name Yeh-Shen and relies for help on a magic fish who gives her golden slippers."
this must be a slap in the face for admirers of the Brothers Grimm. I'd be very interested to see the Chinese version.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
This was not a title some movie maker made up. It's the title of a 007 book by John Gardner, and indeed tells of Leiter and another shark episode. I've read several of the Gardner books, and like them.
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?