High Court Copyright Battles
ChangesPosted by Mark Oates on 17-4-2008 17:10
Currently in the news are two High Court battles over infringement of copyright. One case is an author slapping down an overzealous fan and his hoping-to-cash-in publisher, and the other is a publisher with an expired licence trying to cash in on a BBC product.
The author and the fan are of course Jo Rowling and Steven Vander Ark, the latter who was hoping to convert his Harry Potter-obsessed website into an encyclopedia. IMHO this is what copyright law is, and should be, all about. Any author has the right to defend their own work against exploitation by unauthorized persons. I think if Vander Ark had had the gumption to contact Jo Rowling through her publisher and put the case for the encyclopedia to her (offering her say a 30% of his royalty in reparation), the whole case could have been avoided. All she had to say was no, and that would be it. Simply printing out his website and flogging it to a publisher without checking the legality strikes me as pretty stupid.
The publisher with the expired licence is an outfit that printed a (pretty poor, I've read it) paperback in the 1960s that actually reprinted a shipload of stuff out of the Dalek Annual as the Dalek Survival Guide. It was based on stuff written by Terry Nation to fill in the background on the Daleks (and included stuff like the race originally being called Dals rather than Kaleds). Recently the BBC did a new series tie-in with the co-operation of the Nation estate also called the Dalek Survival Guide and the original publisher took the Beeb to court to get a slice of the action. I don't think they have a leg to stand on, frankly.
Normally I don't side with large corporations. My belief is that Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights are there for authors and artists and shouldn't be able to be held by corporations at all. In the case of the BBC case, however, I do think the Beeb is the injured party, and I'm warmer to the Jo Rowling case because she and not Bloomsbury or Warner Bros are fighting the case.
As a writer myself, I believe in copyright and the rights of authors and artists with regards their intellectual property, but I do think that international copyright is being hijacked by Corporate interests.
Discuss 
ChangesPosted by Si Wooldridge on 18-4-2008 11:06
I personally have no problem with JK Rowling fighting this case, I have the same view as yourself when it comes to writers copyright. I heard a 'dramatic' news report yesterday of a crying Harry Potter fan in the dock defending himself against the evil Rowling and al I could think was 'serves him right'.
The book industry is one of those places where easy cash-ins on successful franchises is rife. I suspect that Vander Ark probably had his head turned by a publisher looking for quick profit, but surely as a 'fan' his first thought should have been to the feelings of the original author?
ChangesPosted by Jitendar Canth on 18-4-2008 12:27
The thing that interests me about the Rowling case, is the implication that lies at the heart of her complaint. She had no problem with the HP Encyclopaedia as long as it remained online. In fact, she even admits to using the site as a resouce herself in the past. It's the prospect of that information being published in print that prompted the complaint.
It confirms what downloaders and filesharers have believed for years, that online media is intrinsically worthless. If there is no value in text, why should there be value in music, or video?
On the rare occasions that I have flirted with e-books, I've had a similar reaction, that what I am reading has no value, is transitory and insubstantial. It's gone with the flick of a switch. Also eyestrain and back pain are a pitiful substitute to a physical book, a cup of coffee, and a roaring central heating system.
I'm sure the owners of the website would be earning money from adverts and so forth, the idea that they aren't making money from someone else's intellectual property is ludicrous. But there is a gentleman's agreement of sort, where fansites are acceptable as they serve to advertise the original property as much as they profit from it.
My gut feeling is that Ms Rowling will win the case, but whether it sets a precedent for other online media is doubtful.
