Tanya Grotter and the Magic Double Bass 337
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.
A bit weak for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:aren't these just parodies (Score:5, Insightful)
The burger comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A bit weak for me. (Score:4, Insightful)
weak article (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
I take your point, but I think 'unmititgated' is a bit strong. I bet she's kept a lot of artistic control. If she'd sold Time Warner the right of approval over the final two Harry Potter works, while allowing them to independently produce their own, then perhaps you could call her an unmitigated sell-out. But so far as I can tell, all she's done is permit Time Warner to sell figurines and other film merchandise. Which seems reasonable enough, considering they've made two major films of her books and are presumably intending to produce at least a further five (though I understand the longer books may be split across than one film).
Re:The burger comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
I think much of the problem with patents, copyright, IP-laws etc, is that the monopoly, that is created due to those laws, is based on the situation that was before the IT revolution. Charles Dickens stories was successful due to their own merits. Today Dickens would only have been successful as long as the marketingpeople could come up with new products... (I hope you get my point).
There is a need to have a look at the economical system!
Finaly, give credit to the original creator, that's one thing I think that they should have the guts to do. Otherwise I would call them pirates or something.
Themes and ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
A few points. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Stolen characters? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
While the article is well argued... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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 [gnu.org]. 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.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:aren't these just parodies (Score:5, Insightful)
The article isn't an argument to apply carefully current copyright law (which allows satire, use of excerpts in criticism, etc.). Rather, it's an argument that copyright laws are not being used to protect the rights of an author to profit from their own work but instead are diminishing the ability of others to make new product that might be loosely, or even directly, based on the original work. While this might sound like the author doesn't like copyright at all, rather she seems to be saying that copyright should be more literal and only prevent TRUE copying of material. In her example, she's advocating the ability to publish a book where Harry Potter meets Gandalf while still being against someone simply selling bootleg versions of "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone."
One interesting point in the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Superficial and Specious (Score:3, Insightful)
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
I dont understand it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A bit weak for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly wouldn't find a version of The Brothers Karamazov set in modern America to have "innate quality and indeed superiority" over the original just because it's no longer set in 19th century Russia.
Re:Overreacting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I dont understand it... (Score:2, Insightful)
all of my friends that have read Eddings, Jordan and Salvatore or even the Shannara series gererally do not like the Harry Potter books.
next time you meet a Harry Potter obsessed adult, ask them what other fantasy books they've read. i'm willing to bet there aren't many who have.
Re:aren't these just parodies (Score:2, Insightful)
There's only one small step from a book where Harry meets Gandalf to one where Gandalf sexually abuses Harry, and while the libertarians here will doubtless fight to the death for peoples' rights to produce books like that, I can't help
feeling that an author deserves some (limited, temporary) right to protect what happens to her characters. Art is not like business; few authors write only for profit.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Begin rant
The common theme behind excessive and restrictive patents and lengthly and restrictive copyrights is what has me disgusted. Our progress, both technological and cultural, relies heavily on derived work. Inventors and artists alike borrow ideas and add their own to create new technology and works, and the thing we find most appaling is that some people would slow this progress, stop it entirely if possible, to reap more than their fair share of rewards. Sure your invention was great, it will help people and make us happy, but the next guy's invention will be even better, so get the hell out of his way.
I think copyright is neccesary, but why must it be so long ? And why cover derivative works at all ? I think patents are neccesary, but how can they be so broad ? Why should one person stop all others from persuing an entire area of innovation ?
Money money money money money. Bastards.
Re:aren't these just parodies (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read it or you just repeat after others?
Tanya Grotter is completely based on Russian folklor fantasy story tails, which I heard more than 3 decades ago from my grandmother. And I won't be surprised to find out that Harry Potters stories are based on west-europen folklor. So, who is stealing what?
Re:Nothing new under the sun... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, though not suddenly. This has always been wrong.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Or as a famous scientist (Newton?) said, "If I have seen further, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants".
Too bad that a very long perspective in economics is non-existent.
Re:Overreacting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overreacting (Score:3, Insightful)
Contracts and though you haven't said it, court battles, occur all the time. It's not all out of malice. A contract to make a movie may not necessarily protect her and HER rights, but the movie maker and THEIR rights. Unless you've seen what was in the contract, it could say anything from:
"I release license of 'Harry Potter' for 7 movies only, which are all under MY approval. This is not a transfer of rights. All production must pass my approval first"
to..
"I'm a consumer whore! Sell it!"
to..
"Time Warner is allowed to make 7 harry potter movies and only 7. It is not a transfer of rights, and Ms Rowling maintains all ownership. This contract is so that she can see her creation hit the big screen and she has creative say on what is good and not good for the movie."
It's not a matter of 'selling out" but a matter of preventing people from reneging on their wishes and suing the crap out of each other. It's a pestimist move.
Re:Nothing new under the sun... (Score:1, Insightful)
Respect for people's beliefs rarely seems to extend to cover Chrisitanity.
Nope, I think you'll find it just doesn't extend to your version of Christianity, or any version of religion that's a bunch of holier-than-thou burn-in-hell orthodox I-can't-be-wrong arrogant claptrap.
BTW who said it's about respect? I don't respect many, many beliefs, let alone organised religion. I tolerate you lot, that's all. (Which historically is more than can be said for any (organised) religion; they always seem to get up to those religious wars to kill the heretics.. Whereas I just hold the belief you're a bit of a sad tosspot. Big difference.)
Re:Nothing new under the sun... (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as you don't think it's your (godgiven) right to rule the "fools" that believe in what you precieve to be a lie; no one can stop you.
The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the only way to know God and therefore anyone claiming to following God but denying Jesus is not in fact following him, but rather oppossing him, which is tantamount to being ont he side of the devil, whether the people realise it or not.
Did you know Jesus is a prophet in Islam? So muslims don't deny Jesus' teachings, they just don't believe it is the "final word". You do know that all of Judaism, Christianity and Islam worship the same god, do you?
But of course these days political correctness rules supreme so you can't hold ideas beliefs that require that of others to be wrong. Tolerance has come to mean saying that everyone is right rather than being able ot say they are wrong, while respecting their right to chose their beliefs.
Well, in my humble view it all comes down to being able to prove what you say. If you hold opinions about other people you can't prove, it's not only tolerant but also simply polite (not to mention smart) to not state those opinions as facts.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a hugely daunting and depressing topic since when you think about it, those in power - the rich and their corporations - have not only put their fist down in the U.S., but also abroad with the WTO. It is quite useless to argue this point to all the copyright and patent holders since to them, the issue is very cut and dry - it all, 100%, comes down to profit.
They will not recognize the fact that yes, like Newton, we all stand on the shoulders of giants before us - this is only useful to those willing to 'share' and those who don't have anything. But how does that affect the members of a board - who usually sit on other boards - when they go home every night to their nice little private castles, shutting out the world? Why, it takes away what is theirs, which of course, threatens their existence, their comfortable life. This is so obvious with the current administation, btw. So obvious.
This is all possible, obviously, because of money. These people who run these corporations who lobby our government - and who stock it - have truck loads of it. I have many talks with my close friends about this and we all agree indeed that this is the Matrix. Not the sci-fi version, but the version of control. Not to turn us into a battery, but to turn us into a mindless follower willing to die or buy for the top percent who can afford pretty much anything.
Look at other examples:
DMCA - control of your sewing patterns you dig out of the trash; control of the xbox that you purchased.
Palladium - control of the computer that you purchased
DRM - control of the information that you purchased
EULAs - not only control of the software you bought (lawyers like to call it 'the license you bought' which of course, can be revoked at any time), but the ability to not be responsible for anything negative that might come of its use. Think viruses, crashes, etc...
There are probably only a very few ways out of this. Maybe you can play the game and become one of the haves and then make the same rules and propagate the same sort of attitude as the people in charge do now - some call these 'society's rules'.
Or maybe you'll become well to do and fight those rules and pursue the ideas of fairness and liberty for all. Ideas that exist in all cultures and in most religious texts, i.e., common sense.
Or maybe you'll scrape by and fight for those ideas of fairness and liberty, yet hold a grudge forever knowing you're on the short end of the stick and you probably won't have a 'comfortable life'.
Or, maybe you'll just be one of those who doesn't care and just goes with the flow. Not really content, but not caring enough to stir things up. Contributing to causality without know anything of it.
Regardless of what path you take, it will take the voices of many to 'wake up' and realize that these laws will only benefit a few - the few who can continue to afford it. They have nothing to do with fairness and justness for the whole and everything to do with greed and control by the few. Only when everyone, like the founding fathers and mothers and all other revolutionaries around the world, stands together can we make an impact. When divided, we fall.
It may not seem like it, but this really is what the people and corps who push these laws count on. In smaller numbers, all are more easily controlled. Which is the ultimate goal for them as the Slate story shows. Free your mind...
Re:aren't these just parodies (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct though, derivation is the way literature advances. A derivative work could be itself more innovative than the original. Certainly Weird Al does a better job on some songs than the original artists did.
The larger question though is, is copyright and patent law broken. Of course I know that will get a resounding yes on Slashdot, but what can be done to fix it?
It seems no matter what limits are put on an author's monopoly of their work it will be arbitary, but many of the kids reading Harry Potter today will never see the day they can legally create derivative works. This is a total disservice to the culture for the benefit of a very small group of people. The temporary monopoly of copyright was given as an incentive to create. When it becomes something that discourages innovation and creativity it has gone too far.
The whole concept of intellectual property in this country has gone too far. It's unfortunate though, that I don't see anyone fixing it. The people who could fix it (the senators etc...) have too many hands in their pockets to come up with something fair for the public. Moreover, I don't believe they really understand technology that well to begin with, and techonology is a large part of why intellectual property laws are so screwed up. I don't know what it's going to take to get these people to open their eyes.
More piracy could have many effects, one could be a huge clamp down and further extension of ridiculous copyright and patent laws. It could also have the opposite effect, but that is unlikely. I wonder what kind of activism could be used successfully to make the powers that be realize this particular branch of law is entirely broken?
[sigh] We're in for a ride the next 20 or so years.
Now you CAN patent business models (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
She's destroying something alright... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Or as I describe the roots of the often piss-poor service and quality of goods around Los Angeles: It doesn't matter if there are 6 million people who know it's Crud. There are 6 million more who don't know any better or can't tell the difference, and will buy it anyway. So why spend the extra dollar or go the extra mile to make your goods and services better than the next guy's?? Who cares, since you can sell it anyway, and can make more profit by cutting corners. So now instead of a clear market dichotomy between original quality (which many people are willing to pay for) and cheap knockoffs (which was once a separate market), the entire market has become cheap knockoffs, with no better choices available even if you want them.
The fact that corporations and individuals can now so readily clamp broad controls against would-be competition only makes matters worse.
For all we know, maybe one of these Harry Potter lookalikes would be the start of something great and unique, if only it were allowed to grow in its own way.
Re:Nothing new under the sun... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this the position the Muslims hold? That Christians are true believers, only their beliefs are a bit wrong...
2) It's pretty offensive to see people putting something other than God first. And how many times a day do you hear someone exclaiming 'Jesus Christ!' or 'Oh my God!'? Bet that would be a lot less acceptable if it was Buddah or Allah being used instead.
I'd say you're very self-centric. If you were in, let's say, Afghanistan, you'd hear many people saying 'Bismillah!'. I don't say 'Oh my God!' too often, I mostly use the word 'kurat!' (the Estonian for 'devil'). Look away from your toes, please...Re:aren't these just parodies (Score:2, Insightful)
Hold your horses, American cowboy! That would happen *ONLY* if Tanya's author will come with that book to sell it in US. As for now, he must comply his business with local laws of countries he is selling the book. And as fas as I know he's selling it mostly in Russia, also in xUSSR republics, and few in Western Europe.
Remember, they are US laws, not international ones!
In Defense of Rowling & Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
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."