| Author |
Topic:
Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
NJOfan215
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
5/7 10:24am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
|
haha
-----signature-----
This council has zero tolerance for any sexual deviancy regarding our Jedi Knights.
Go Eagles
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NYCitygurl
Title: Manager of SFFBC, C&G, and NSWFF
Registered:
Jul '02
|
Date Posted:
5/7 10:35am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
Almost all fantasy authors have the same basic plotline; the bad ones (and some of the classics) show it. The reluctant hero sets out on an epic quest to save the world/land/kingdom/galaxy/his family, gains newfound magical powers and is guided by a wise old wizard until the time comes when he must face his evil enemy alone, relying on his magical ability and the love of his family/friends/hot girl/mentor.
How many times have people complained that Eragon copied from evryone else? Same deal here, except not so blatant and it's well-written.
-----signature-----
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Master of padawanlost, Ultima_1, Jedimaster_JainaSolo, and Vaders_Angel 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Strilo
Title: PT Manager
aka Dr. John Dorian
Registered:
Aug '01
|
Date Posted:
5/7 10:52am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
|
That image is brilliant.
-----signature-----
#1 on iTunes Most Played: R.E.M. "Imitation of Life"
#1 on iTunes Film Scores: Harry Potter "A Window to the Past"
* * * * * *
"Turned on the TV and what do I see?
A pageantry of empty gestures all lined up for me. Wow!"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedimarine
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
5/7 12:41pm
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
- Date Edited:
5/7 1:29pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jedimarine
|
NYCitygurl posted:
Contracted works - by the copyright holder. You can't legally make money off of what other people write. If someone were to go try to publish HP fanfic, JKR would be totally within her right to sure that person.
And it doesn't matter how much money she has. It's illegal and unethical to make money off of her work like that.
No I mean contracted works between artist and customer...take a stroll down an artist row at a convention or art fair...I guarantee you'll see a dozen or more freelance renders of SW or Tolkien or Harry Potter or Disney or whatever people want...and not a dime in royalty will find it's way to the respective copyright holders.
Same with years on End of Hogwarts scarves that people have knit and sold online or crafted wands...or made lightsabers. Same thing with people who right books on the philosophy of such fiction, and similar "tangent" books.
Now if they ever started making money on a level that could jeopardize a copyright owner's product lines...then you might see this happen...but most of time, this stuff just goes on...because the cost of litigation is more then any award a holder could gain...and there is a grey area in terms of "fair use"...especially when talking about "cultural icons". (Disney ran into that with Mickey Mouse a few years ago).
I never disputed the legality of a copyright holders claims...I simply indicated that it happens all the time, no matter how unethical it may seem...if JKR is going to be policing the open markets for people making a little money on her creation...she's going to spend more on doing so then it's probably worth...and for what? So she can be second with the idea for such a product?
She should've embraced the effort...then encouraged her own publisher to pay him what he would've gotten from his small release or perhaps a little more and taken the lion share from a 2 million print bestseller.
It may be legal...but that doesn't mean it can't be petty.
-----signature-----
A voice for my thoughts has been lost.
RIP George Carlin
I wonder if heaven is ready for the 7 words.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Soontir-Fel
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
5/7 1:28pm
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
NYCitygurl posted:
How many times have people complained that Eragon copied from evryone else? Same deal here, except not so blatant and it's well-written.
What?
-----signature-----
Errent_Venture Wrote " Listen to Soontir-Fel for he is a man ruling over other men."
Ender_Sai wrote "In other news, I confer Modly praise on Soontir and Rogue_wookie for being superior men, worth of the title of Spartan. They, may keep their penises"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Whatshisface_
Registered:
Mar '08
|
Date Posted:
5/8 2:00pm
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
After reading the article, my opinion of OSC just rose.
It's nice to see other author's feelings on Rowling's behavior. She should have been able to see that once she stopped writing, others would want to continue it on their own (look at SW). To prevent the current situtation she shouldn't have allowed any one to use HP (those "What will Happen in HP__?" books spring to mind)
The only reason I can see her lawsuit having any merit is if she is in the final stages of publishing her own encyclopedia.
On the "stealing" idea; I don't see it as that serious. Every SciFi/Fantasy story has basically the same plot, so unless its really explicit its not too bad. Paolini was smart because the guys he copied from are mainly dead and therefore will have a hard time suing him.
-----signature-----
"The Lord is my shepard" Psalm 23
Counter movement: Fel/Phennir 08
Han shot first
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NYCitygurl
Title: Manager of SFFBC, C&G, and NSWFF
Registered:
Jul '02
|
Date Posted:
5/8 2:16pm
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
Darth_Whatshisface_ posted:
It's nice to see other author's feelings on Rowling's behavior. She should have been able to see that once she stopped writing, others would want to continue it on their own (look at SW).
The difference being that Lucas gave his permission for SW to continue in books and comics. The publishers held (and DelRey holds) rights to do that. JKR doesn't want this, feels that it is a threat, and has every right to go after this guy.
And yeah, I suppose you're right; artists can make money that way. However, that does not mean that was SVA is doing is okay; JKR has every right to go after him.
Soontir-Fel posted:
NYCitygurl posted:
How many times have people complained that Eragon copied from evryone else? Same deal here, except not so blatant and it's well-written.
What?
Sorry, I need to form real sentences. I meant that JKR wasn't so blatant and HP is well-written. Eragon is neither.
-----signature-----
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Master of padawanlost, Ultima_1, Jedimaster_JainaSolo, and Vaders_Angel
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rebel_cheese
Registered:
Jul '06
|
Date Posted:
5/8 8:35pm
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
- Date Edited:
5/8 8:47pm (3 edits total)
Edited By:
rebel_cheese
|
I personally think Rowling is being overdramatic but she does have a legal case and she is correct in trying to stop the Lexicon. By law, only she has the right to authorize such a thing, and she clearly did not authorize it.
I would not permit something like a Lexicon of my work if I didn't authorize it first either.
Now, fanworks being sold can work somewhat, depending on the society. There is a bazillion doujnshi (sic?) being sold in Japan alongside official work and they manage to co-exist just fine. But Japanese culture is different than the US or Western culture in general, I think that most Westerners, including myself, would take advantage way too far.
Edit: FTR, I think Card is an intelligent man who writes superb stories (with the lone exception being Pastwatch), and he is my favorite author. He is a bit too conservative but he makes good points most of the time, except when he's talking about some of his social views, which I find disagreement with.
I also am of the opinion that Dumbledore is not gay. If he was, J.K. Rowling should have said so in the text. If I'm going to write a homosexual character I'd make sure the reader would at least see it implied before the story ended, I agree with Card on that.
-----signature-----
Padawan of princess_of_naboo E-married to the amazing padawanlost Member of Charon_Force Beginning's End: http://boards.theforce.net/Message.aspx?topic=28450077&brd=10477&replies=1
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Commander-DWH
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
5/8 10:33pm
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
- Date Edited:
5/8 11:21pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Commander-DWH
|
You know, I've been following this for a long time. There are a lot of legal fanworks out there, and I fully support them. So, you'll notice, does JKR. She has long encouraged her fan community, moreso than many other authors. There are a number of books that exist that take Harry Potter, and make good, scholarly comment on the books. JKR has never tried to stop them, and her licensing agency has been very cooperative with people interested in writing such books.
The Harry Potter Lexicon in book format is not the site (in spite of early instructions from RDR to the WB to 'hit the print button' if they wanted to see the manuscript so badly). It is only the A-Z index, and much of that is available to the public through Justia. Side-by-side comparisons of the Lexicon text versus JKR's text reveal that most of the phrasing is almost exactly the same. In fact, it has been shown that 91.4% of the Lexicon is comprised of JKR's words (document 84 on Justia, Exhibit A). That is not fair use. That's copy-pasting and rearranging with a few facetious remarks to call your own. Not to mention his citations are sporadic and completely inadequate, and don't follow any remotely recognizable system.
Just to add insult to injury, JKR corrected one of his etymologies on the witness stand. He has since corrected the online Lexicon to reflect this, but did not give any credit to her. Instead, he credited one of his LiveJournal friends for hunting down a website. Call me biased, but that is one of the most classless things I have ever seen in fandom.
Saying that "it was allowed online, so it should be allowed in print" is a very, very dangerous thing to say. If such a precedent is set, I would not expect online fandom to survive much longer. Using that argument, any fanfiction published online would be completely legal to sell, and you can be quite sure that no sane copyright holder is going to let that happen.
The point is not that JKR is rich. She's not making any money off this lawsuit (it was detailed in the original complaint that any proceeds of the case would go directly to charity), she wouldn't make any money off any books she would publish in the future. She has enough money, and she knows it. But she's not required to share if she doesn't want to- that's why we have copyright laws. The reason she's fighting this one with everything she has is because there are a lot of other authors who aren't filthy rich. And they wouldn't be able to defend themselves if somebody decided to infringe their copyright.
Thing is, you shouldn't listen to me, you shouldn't listen to JKR, and you shouldn't listen to OSC. If you want an objective view of the case, all the documents are readily available. US Copyright laws are easy to find online. You can even view full transcripts of the trial. Don't rely on the rantings of others to provide you with an opinion, because everyone has a bias. Look at the evidence and decide for yourselves.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
yankee8255
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/9 12:00am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
Commander-DWH posted:
You know, I've been following this for a long time. There are a lot of legal fanworks out there, and I fully support them. So, you'll notice, does JKR. She has long encouraged her fan community, moreso than many other authors. There are a number of books that exist that take Harry Potter, and make good, scholarly comment on the books. JKR has never tried to stop them, and her licensing agency has been very cooperative with people interested in writing such books.
The Harry Potter Lexicon in book format is not the site (in spite of early instructions from RDR to the WB to 'hit the print button' if they wanted to see the manuscript so badly). It is only the A-Z index, and much of that is available to the public through Justia. Side-by-side comparisons of the Lexicon text versus JKR's text reveal that most of the phrasing is almost exactly the same. In fact, it has been shown that 91.4% of the Lexicon is comprised of JKR's words (document 84 on Justia, Exhibit A). That is not fair use. That's copy-pasting and rearranging with a few facetious remarks to call your own. Not to mention his citations are sporadic and completely inadequate, and don't follow any remotely recognizable system.
Just to add insult to injury, JKR corrected one of his etymologies on the witness stand. He has since corrected the online Lexicon to reflect this, but did not give any credit to her. Instead, he credited one of his LiveJournal friends for hunting down a website. Call me biased, but that is one of the most classless things I have ever seen in fandom.
Saying that "it was allowed online, so it should be allowed in print" is a very, very dangerous thing to say. If such a precedent is set, I would not expect online fandom to survive much longer. Using that argument, any fanfiction published online would be completely legal to sell, and you can be quite sure that no sane copyright holder is going to let that happen.
The point is not that JKR is rich. She's not making any money off this lawsuit (it was detailed in the original complaint that any proceeds of the case would go directly to charity), she wouldn't make any money off any books she would publish in the future. She has enough money, and she knows it. But she's not required to share if she doesn't want to- that's why we have copyright laws. The reason she's fighting this one with everything she has is because there are a lot of other authors who aren't filthy rich. And they wouldn't be able to defend themselves if somebody decided to infringe their copyright.
Thing is, you shouldn't listen to me, you shouldn't listen to JKR, and you shouldn't listen to OSC. If you want an objective view of the case, all the documents are readily available. US Copyright laws are easy to find online. You can even view full transcripts of the trial. Don't rely on the rantings of others to provide you with an opinion, because everyone has a bias. Look at the evidence and decide for yourselves.
(Though I don't fully fully agree with the rest of your post -- I think SVA has a stronger case than you make it out to be)
QtheboldpartFT
-----signature-----
A perfect world: a house in the Hamptons with two solaria and a horse named Prickely Pete,
Dr. van Nostrand as my primary care physician,
the O-OT legally available on DVD in a quality worthy of its greatness
and Luke the undisputed hero of Star Wars
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
mandragora
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/9 4:48am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
- Date Edited:
5/9 5:36am (4 edits total)
Edited By:
mandragora
|
I've also been following this for a long time. For one thing, before posting an article in such a condescending and insulting tone, he should get his facts straight. Stouffer *lost* the lawsuit against Rowling and was fined for false testimony in court. To leave that bit out is misleading, to say the least. The Lexicon in question is *not* an A-Z guide, as it doesn't include commentary, analysis, or criticism, but merely an alphabethical rearrangement of the Potter books. And as can be seen from the pdf-files of the books, which are also accessible online on the court's website, it doesn't even *quote* properly. And isn't it interesting that an author who according to his wiki entry thinks homosexuality should be punishable by law, and who used to be a fan of Rowlings, now turns on her, after her revelation that Dumbledore is gay. When he'd posted this entry on his blog before about two weeks ago, miraculously no comments showed up besides one, containing the single word "ouch", even though numerous people tried to comment - so much for advocating the right of free commentary.
What I'd like to know is why no-one hardly ever mentions that this isn't a "Rowling vs RDR (let alone SVA) lawsuit", but a joint lawsuit on the part of Rowling *and* Warner Bros. versus RDR books represented the Stanford lawyers group that's part of a non-profit organisation promoting the extension of the Fair Use clause. Am I the only one, besides the Judge, who can't escape the impression that neither Rowling nor RDR are the driving forces here?
-----signature-----
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” —Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
leia_naberrie
Registered:
Sep '02
|
Date Posted:
5/9 6:38am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
- Date Edited:
5/9 7:41am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
leia_naberrie
|
That was an interesting article. I don't know enough about copyright laws, etc to make a case on the legality of the trial. I do think that Ceillean is probably right in thinking that this whole trial is a publicity stunt by Rowling & co on behalf of the Harry Potter franchise.
mandragora posted:
What I'd like to know is why no-one hardly ever mentions that this isn't a "Rowling vs RDR (let alone SVA) lawsuit", but a joint lawsuit on the part of Rowling *and* Warner Bros. versus RDR books represented the Stanford lawyers group that's part of a non-profit organisation promoting the extension of the Fair Use clause. Am I the only one, besides the Judge, who can't escape the impression that neither Rowling nor RDR are the driving forces here?
The reason why the impression is inescapable is due to the actions of Rowling herself to personalize the trial. She chose to give evidence in tears, request that she and SVA not share a courtroom, and made statements about how the trial has affected her work.
One point in that article I absolutely, 100% concur with:
Orson_Scott_Card posted:
It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay. She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales.
What a pretentious, puffed-up coward.
Word. Word. Word.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
mandragora
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
5/9 7:41am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
- Date Edited:
5/9 7:55am (3 edits total)
Edited By:
mandragora
|
leia_naberrie posted:
That was an interesting article. I don't know enough about copyright laws, etc to make a case on the legality of the trial. I do think that Ceillean is probably right in thinking that this whole trial is a publicity stunt by Rowling & co on behalf of the Harry Potter franchise.
mandragora posted:
What I'd like to know is why no-one hardly ever mentions that this isn't a "Rowling vs RDR (let alone SVA) lawsuit", but a joint lawsuit on the part of Rowling *and* Warner Bros. versus RDR books represented the Stanford lawyers group that's part of a non-profit organisation promoting the extension of the Fair Use clause. Am I the only one, besides the Judge, who can't escape the impression that neither Rowling nor RDR are the driving forces here?
Because Rowling chose to personalize the trial by giving evidence in tears, requesting that she and SVA not share a courtroom, and making statements about how the trial has affected her work.
It's not like the reports mentioned the interests of Warner Bros. and the Stanford Lawyers in this case before Rowling pulled that stunt in the court.
I think Judge Patterson's right with his concern that this case is "more lawyer-driven than client-driven", and that a settlement would be best for both.
... posted:
Word. Word. Word.
O.S. Card, the new attorney advocating the interests homosexuals. Please, give me a break.
-----signature-----
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” —Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NYCitygurl
Title: Manager of SFFBC, C&G, and NSWFF
Registered:
Jul '02
|
Date Posted:
5/9 9:40am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
From a lawyer who posted in a JRK thread in fanfic:
Darth_Lex posted:
Copyright law isn't my specialty by far, but I do think Card overstates the strength of Vander Ark's case. If the Lexicon really is 90%+ verbatim passages from the novels, that's clearly a derivative work - not commentary or analysis. Attributions of the quotes avoids plagiarism, but it's still wholesale copying with no value added other than the reorganization. If that's right, then the Lexicon is very different from the commentary type books Card contributed to - and the law likely will treat it as different. (Rightfully so, IMO.)
-----signature-----
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Master of padawanlost, Ultima_1, Jedimaster_JainaSolo, and Vaders_Angel
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Commander-DWH
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
5/9 10:03am
Subject:
RE: Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.
|
Speaking of legal opinions, I've vastly enjoyed the writings of the LJ lawyer praetorianguard. Just for good measure, her thoughts on Judge Patterson's call to settle.
Fair Use law isn't entirely clear, and I've heard it described by at least one attourney as "frustratingly wishy-washy." I know where I stand, but I'm not the judge. So it will be very interesting to see where this case does end up going.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
