Letters to the Editor
Suzy Shedd
Published Letters: 21 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Why not take it to the Wizengamot?
[Read the article: More on why Rowling is wrong on the Potter lexicon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with Manjoo on most issues, and I DEFINITELY feel that copyright law in this country has turned into a formula that encourages constriction of creative processes in support of long-term greed.
In this instance, though, I find myself hesitating. I am not familiar with the web site in question, and I (like all of us here) have not seen the proposed manuscript. In the absence of this information, I wonder if Manjoo's take may simply be premature. If, for example, every entry has an extensive quote, then the "bulk" of the work would be Rowling's writings repackaged (it isn't an original work if you simply alphabetize what someone else wrote). A work of rearrangement and a work of reference are not the same.
I would suggest that the fact that we really can't know, at this point, whether or not it's obvious that the manuscript is copyright infringement (we don't even know how closely it mimics the website) means that arguing about it is a massive waste of time. That does leave some other issues worth exploring:
1) the rights and wrongs of copyright law itself. This has already taken several books, but I'm sure we can solve it easily in some posts and comments.
2) if copyright is being infringed, are there valid reasons for Rowling to oppose the manuscript for reasons other than greed? If she doesn't oppose THIS one, does that hurt her ability to take a stand on another project? I don't know, and we haven't heard from anyone with real expertise in this area.
3) even if copyright law is ridiculous, IS it morally wrong for Rowling to insist that she benefit from its protections? Just because she's made tons of money doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong for her to make more. We could have a discussion about the morality of money-making -- how much one is "allowed" to make and still be moral, and what one is supposed to do once the limit is reached but the money still comes in. And then we'd have to ask if it's fair to hold Rowling alone to this standard. Then we'd have to look at whether someone's insistence on getting money that is legally theirs is made more or less moral by how they use it once they have it.
4) even if Rowling is making an immoral amount of money, and even if the copyright law is immoral, is she morally obligated to let someone else profit from her work? Saying you don't want and don't need what the law says you're entitled to is NOT saying that someone else has a "right" to your work because they think it's the most beautiful work they've ever seen. If Mr.Manjoo has been keeping up with Broadsheet posts, he might remember the outrage many of us felt when a (hopefully soon to be overturned) judge basically said that a prostitute couldn't be raped. (Come to think of it, even he said that her services could be stolen and that that was a crime.) Rowling's generosity in letting people use her work on a website shouldn't remove her right to choose how, when, and to whom she chooses to be generous, should it?
I know that when I index a book for an author, I am paid a one-time flat fee. I don't hold rights to my indexing -- those rights belong to the author when I "sell" the index -- and I don't get royalties every time a copy of the book is purchased. My indexing is a valuable service, but it's not really original content, and it's up to the author to decide if it provides an accurate and adequate key to the work. (There are references that provide unique insights or methods of access, of course, and perhaps the proposed lexicon in this case is one of them. Who knows?)
This legal battle raises a number of fascinating issues, and I hope Mr. Manjoo will get his teeth into them and not simply snap at an obvious target for dramatic effect.
-
@LionMage
[Read the article: More on why Rowling is wrong on the Potter lexicon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am sorry to sound so picky when you have rightly taken anonymous posters to task for ad hominem viciousness. However, I'm afraid Mr. Manjoo DID open the gates to questions about Rowling's morality in his first post on the topic:
"But the question is not whether Rowling is on solid legal ground in suing her fans. It's whether she's on solid moral ground. And the answer, obviously, is no; indeed, considering how much her fans have done for her, her move is even more lamentable than Prince's recent promise to sue his supporters."
I know this was the comment that disturbed me the most; the same appears to have been true for several other commenters. I believe conjoining the legal and moral issues set a confusing tone for both posts -- but that may be because I don't find copyright law all that simple, either!
Since Salon offers the option of pseudonyms, I keep hoping it will decide to do away with "Anonymous" posts, which often seem to confuse nastiness with argument.