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? 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"
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)
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.
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.
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.
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!
"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)
... 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
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
..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?
I agree, Rowling isn't the best of the lot by any stretch. I read the first book and about 3/4ths of the 2nd book, and had enough -- the freshness had worn off and it was beginning to feel rather Bobbsey Twins-ish. Which, of course, is what Harry Potter really is -- an updated serial much of that type; hence it's no wonder kids like it. I think it was a phenom mainly because it had been a couple decades since such a series was on the market.
Haven't heard of So You Want To Be A Wizard, but the whole school-for-wizards scenario is an old idea all around, in fact it's a fairly standard story launcher in fantasy novels.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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."