Letters to the Editor
-
I'm in your corner on this one
Rowling should pay the guy for lovingly indexing all of her fiction. Its a good PR tool and the geeks would love it. She could always ask for a cut of the proceeds and it would be a big win all around. I smell studio lawyers in the whole deal, quite honestly.
-
I guess I'm biased towards the book industry that pays my salary...
I like your comparison to Google. But, you've opened the door to Google Book Search (which, I'll expect you meant to do). Correct me if I'm wrong, but, didn't book publishers argue that GBS was impeding their ability to develop and profit off of the same technology on behalf of the works for which they hold copyright? Which is exactly what HPL's book would do, especially since the author knows quite well that JKR plans to write her own encyclopedia. I think that might have been behind the Seinfeld books' case, too. Of course it goes against all logic that someone who was fan enough to buy this book wouldn't buy the official version, but, you can't prove that wouldn't happen ever.
-
RE:More on why Rowling is wrong on the Potter lexicon
What you dont seem to understand is that the individual in question isnt just repackaging information and publishing it on website. Rowling herself encouraged that and supported fans contributing to it. However when it comes to publishing that site as website owner's own "original" work, then the matter is not so clear cut. You seem to be willing to overlook that part of it. Publishing a book of facts and quotes of the HP book without any approval from the author herself, especially when that work will directly compete with a project from the author herself is clearly crossing the line into copyright infringement. Much like someone collecting all or your written works, reformatting them into a "Tribute to the Collected works of Farhad Manjoo", and then selling them through Amazon or Barnes and Noble. I'm sure you would be more than justified in taking offense such action. You'd probably, heaven forbid!, even consider legal action.
-
You're an idiot.
Because your blog is available and accessible to all for free and books are not, you hopeless MORON.
Your argument might hold a TINY bit of weight if books were regularly available for free. But as JKR has continued to charge for books, she is saying that her world is hers to make money off of.
Also, free and true facts - like that you said X and Y thing in your blog - ARE NOT copyrightable. What an author makes up IS copyrightable.
God, read a book before you make more of an argument against free speech.
-
And I don't mean free as in "available at libraries."
Yes, you can read books at libraries for free. NO, that is not akin to posting them on the internet.
-
Doesn't Apply to All of Salon
Oh, so all the Salon premium articles are indexed by Google for free, then? Wonderful! I don't need to get that pass after all.
-
"I wouldn't care!!" - A classic playground ploy
Hhhhokay. So.
Farhad takes a look at a situation he's never been in, makes an uninformed decision that doesn't affect him in the least, and when he gets called on it by a half a thousand readers, scrabbles around and comes up with another situation that actually doesn't apply and says, "See? What's the big deal? MY stuff gets indexed on Google, and LALALALA I don't care! And OF COURSE this is COMPLETELY relevant to this discussion. So I'm right and you're all wrong! Nyahnyahnyah!" How utterly infantile. And yet, predictable!
The whole point of the situation just flies by your head, doesn't it?
-
FM misses the market
Is there a viable market for an index of Machinist posts? I hardly think so. Allowing me to compile them is the equivalent of giving me permission to pilfer your recycled newspaper from the curb before the garbageman shows up.
JK Rowling may, on the other hand, decide to take HER words and HER ideas and compile them into a format that might attract her fans and their dollars. As is her right. If some fanboys do this first, she has lost some of the value that she created.
-
The question is whether or not it actually causes her financial harm
And I'm not sure it will. If anything, it is likely to increase revenue, same as Google Print. Someone who buys this lexicon will buy other Harry Potter stuff, most of it written by Rowling.
I actually bought books because of Google Print; I was searching for information, I found the book that contained it, and I ordered it online. The book was not available at the local bookstore - in fact, I would not have known to look for that particular book if it weren't for the search I did. So the publisher made money on that one.
Personally, I think that Rowling should be allowed to control her intellectual property - but this control comes with consequences. Her fans are free to make their own decisions as to whether to give her their money, too. If they find her behavior so outrageous that they won't want to give her their money, it's their choice. Personally, I make a point of boycotting artists who have ridiculously strict copyright policies.
-
The Google Analogy
The Google analogy doesn't work.
For starters, Google and other search engines direct people straight to your work. It's why they exist--they're glorified phone books. They are not profiting from your words, they are profiting from directing people to your words. The fact that they have advertisers reimbursing them saves you, the author, from having to do the same--they are providing you as much a service as they are providing your readers.
In the case of the Lexicon, the author profits directly from JKR's work, not from a service he is providing to her work. It may be in some cases that someone picks up the Lexicon and then starts scooping up Potter books. However, it seems more likely to me that purchasers of Potter books would add the Lexicon to their Potter collection, not vice-versa.
Google's copy of Salon does not hurt Salon because Google isn't, for example, choosing the best of Salon's content for the day or week, publishing it, and selling it on news stands. Again, Google isn't using Salon's content for the content's sake, they are using the content to drive people to your site. They exist for no other reason.
In addition, it's not so much about the Lexicon "hurting" JKR, is it? Whether it helps or hurts her, the Lexicon directly takes her work and profits from it. Even if it helps JKR, she should retain reasonable rights to it. Maybe if I went and printed a thousand T-shirts with Harry Potter's mug on it, even more people would be exposed to the books and that would help JKR too. It doesn't make it right though, morally or legally.
Finally, you do point out that Google has an opt-out available. Isn't this what JKR is doing?