JK Rowling should lose the case. This is neither a violation of copyright nor trademark. What the people behind Harry Potter Lexicon were intending was a not a copy of her work. It was an analysis that would use excerpts in order to create a companion guide to the book. Should the Wikipedia be sued for using excerpts from copyrighted material? How about the book review section of the New York Times? As for trademark, the standard in England is that a “moron in a hurry” needs to be able to tell the difference between this work and the trademarked work. Maybe I give morons too much credit, but I think one can difference between the books and a third-party companion guide.
I feel that copyrights, trademarks, and patents are important to an economy, but they have been taken too far. The points of these laws were to encourage innovation, creativity, and art. Now they often are used to stifle such things. We have patent trolls with amazingly vague patents. Copyrights are indefinitely extended, well beyond the point needed to make up the cost of the creation of ips. Trademarks are used to attack people that are in no way hurting the trademark holder. Worse, the efforts to help ip holders sometimes go too far. SOPA was good example of this. Ultimately, software needs to be protected by copyright, not patents. Copyrights need to last less long, maybe 10 to 20. Trademarks also need to be less encompassing on what qualifies a violation.
I understand the idea that copyrights protects JK Rowling's works but I think she's going too far with it. She created a world that people genuinely love and now she's trying to stifle people when they try to expand on the world through something like an encyclopedia. Like the article said encyclopedias have been made for other similar topics like Lord of the Rings so she should just accept these outside publishing as free marketing for her books.
I don't find it strange that Rowling wants a complete monopoly on Harry Potter. Although she may claim that RDR Book's plan to publish an encyclopedia takes away from her own potential "proceeds for charity", it's clear that Rowling wants to monopolize Harry Potter like Disney did with Mickey Mouse. However, I do understand her intentions. If I was in her shoes, I would definitely want to monopolize Harry Potter. However, there may be a limit to monopolization. One negative effect of it is how it stifles creativity. Various cases such as Mr. Lessig's case against Mickey Mouse and Universal Music's request to take down a Youtube video show the extent to which monopolies effects can be felt.
I thought this article was definitely very interesting. Mr. Lessig's initiative is very important, as it not only allows individuals to expand on past "arts" but also allows society as a whole to progress. Just as the article alluded to, we cannot have a society in the US that bars individuals from posting YouTube videos of children dancing to Prince songs. The "Lexicon" book for Harry Potter seems innocuous, and J.K. Rowling's fiery response to it only shows that she is determined to maintain a stronghold on all items related to Harry Potter. Such a litigious environment can't be healthy for innovation, whether it be with technology or even with books. We should protect the intellectual property of innovators, but that does not warrant a total lack of autonomy for the next generation of thinkers.
Jeff K. News of copyright and patent cases have really emphasized the issue of the stifling of creativity because of these copyright laws which were originially meant to protect creativity. Now, as Joe Nocura points out, copyrights have allowed people to control their intellectual property which prevents the expansion of creativity. With the case of J.K. Rowling, it seems that she has good intentions of maintaining the control of her intellectual property, the Harry Potter series, but the underlying issue of her trying to create a monopoly of Harry Potter is a big problem. RDR Books should have the right to produce its own books despite it trying to publish something about Rowling's Harry Potter because it is their own collection of thoughts which makes it their books their intellectual property. In the end, copyrights have been abused to stifle other people's creativity and needs to be laxed in order to promote further creativity.
I understand J.K. Rowling's stance on trying to protect her intellectual property, but I believe it is wrong of her claiming to own anything and everything that relates to Harry Potter which includes a fan book. Based on the article, the book does not reproduce her ideas for a profit, but rather further analyzes her work for Harry Potter fanatics everywhere. I agree with the author of the article in that she is injustly limiting the creativity of her fans by trying to create a monopoly out of her popular book series.
I disagree with J.K. Rowling that RDR books shouldnt be able to make a book about Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling thought of the idea of Harry Potter, but other people can expand her idea even further. She is stunting creativity and economic growth in others. I understand where she is coming from but others should be able to elaborate on her ideas. Throughout history many ideas have been used to make other ideas and they havent improved society. People should be able to make stories and other creations with wizards and stuff. She shouldnt be allowed to make a monopoly. Period 6 Vihar Shah
Personally, I agree with RDR books because although J.K. Rowling was the creator of the famous Harry Potter series, RDR books is solely creating an "encyclopedia" of Harry Potter, which is reasonable. So what if J.K. Rowling created the characters? RDR Books is not publishing a book with a new plot scheme, or imitating characters, but simply an encyclopedia of Harry Potter. This case parallels with the idea of litigation on copyright, because it does hinder creativity. Copyrighters are placing copyrights where there should never have been copyrights. Of the article, this sentence, ". But the law absolutely allows anyone to create something new based on someone else’s art," captures my perspective best. How does J.K. Rowling have the power to decide what a companion book is and if it is allowable? -Sahil Parikh AP Micro Period 6
I found this article very interesting because originally J.K. Rowling did not mind having an online, free Harry Potter Lexicon; however, once the creator of the lexicon wanted to sell it in the form of a book, Rowling sued for copyright infringement. I think in general it is very difficult to determine who owns what idea. Overall, this article is just one example that shows how flawed the copyright system is in determining whose ideas are whose.
This article is relevant to the conversation we had in class one day about the modern day copyrights and how they are more about ideas rather than physical objects. Because I am not a die-hard fan of Harry Potter, I have never heard about this lawsuit or online encyclopedia. However, this article does point out flaw in the copyright system and points to the question of "who really owns the idea?". I understand both perspectives, J.K. Rowling wants to protect what she had created in the first place and Mr. Vander Ark rightfully created the encyclopedia. In spite of this, I also understand that J.K. Rowling would be missing out on a lot of profit from an idea that spawned from her own. Therefore, it is only logical for her to fight for what she wants. However this story is spun, I still believe that J.K. Rowling would only fight for this for the financial aspect.
While everyone is entitled to have protection over their intellectual property, it is ridiculous to push for everything Harry Potter related to be J.K. Rowling's 100% and not any less. The examples in the article to explain how we have cracked down violations of copyrights were Napster and Viacom. Napster should not even be a close comparison because it was a program used to illegally distribute millions of media files vs J.K. Rowling to argue that anyone making money off of even making an encyclopedia to help readers understand different characters in the books. I just feel that if Rowling is able to win her case, every author or musician or entertainer who uses even a snippet of someone else's idea will be getting sued all over the place.
I think that this is a little bit of a stretch for J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers. I see Harry Potter items all the time that are not made by Warner Brothers. How come this small book is the one that they wont stand for? It also makes me wonder how far can they take this. Can they ban Halloween costumes from Harry Potter characters?
Isaac- p.6 I thought that this article was very interesting. I think that, in a way, J.K. Rowling is right. Since she came up the whole idea of Harry Potter, nobody should be able to make a profit on these ideas. Now there must be a line drawn, however. She cant have a monopoly over all books about wizards, but she can fight for the case in which Steven Vander tried to publish a book all about Harry Potter. Since Harry Potter was Rowling's idea, she should be able to stop this. I think that this does ultimately give her a monopoly over the market for Harry Potter, in a way, but not completely. She said that she does not mind the website being up about the "encyclopedia of Harry Potter", just as long as nobody tries to make profit by publishing a book based on her ideas.
I thought that this article about Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling maintaining and extending the definition of a monopoly on it was very interesting. I think that there should be a limit on what she controls, because not everything in the Harry Potter world should be under control because the whole situation has grown very large.
AP Micro - PD 6 - MTC
ReplyDeleteJK Rowling should lose the case. This is neither a violation of copyright nor trademark. What the people behind Harry Potter Lexicon were intending was a not a copy of her work. It was an analysis that would use excerpts in order to create a companion guide to the book. Should the Wikipedia be sued for using excerpts from copyrighted material? How about the book review section of the New York Times? As for trademark, the standard in England is that a “moron in a hurry” needs to be able to tell the difference between this work and the trademarked work. Maybe I give morons too much credit, but I think one can difference between the books and a third-party companion guide.
I feel that copyrights, trademarks, and patents are important to an economy, but they have been taken too far. The points of these laws were to encourage innovation, creativity, and art. Now they often are used to stifle such things. We have patent trolls with amazingly vague patents. Copyrights are indefinitely extended, well beyond the point needed to make up the cost of the creation of ips. Trademarks are used to attack people that are in no way hurting the trademark holder. Worse, the efforts to help ip holders sometimes go too far. SOPA was good example of this. Ultimately, software needs to be protected by copyright, not patents. Copyrights need to last less long, maybe 10 to 20. Trademarks also need to be less encompassing on what qualifies a violation.
Richard Per 6
ReplyDeleteI understand the idea that copyrights protects JK Rowling's works but I think she's going too far with it. She created a world that people genuinely love and now she's trying to stifle people when they try to expand on the world through something like an encyclopedia. Like the article said encyclopedias have been made for other similar topics like Lord of the Rings so she should just accept these outside publishing as free marketing for her books.
I don't find it strange that Rowling wants a complete monopoly on Harry Potter. Although she may claim that RDR Book's plan to publish an encyclopedia takes away from her own potential "proceeds for charity", it's clear that Rowling wants to monopolize Harry Potter like Disney did with Mickey Mouse. However, I do understand her intentions. If I was in her shoes, I would definitely want to monopolize Harry Potter. However, there may be a limit to monopolization. One negative effect of it is how it stifles creativity. Various cases such as Mr. Lessig's case against Mickey Mouse and Universal Music's request to take down a Youtube video show the extent to which monopolies effects can be felt.
ReplyDeleteAustin
Period 6
Ben Pleat, Micro pd 6
ReplyDeleteI thought this article was definitely very interesting. Mr. Lessig's initiative is very important, as it not only allows individuals to expand on past "arts" but also allows society as a whole to progress. Just as the article alluded to, we cannot have a society in the US that bars individuals from posting YouTube videos of children dancing to Prince songs. The "Lexicon" book for Harry Potter seems innocuous, and J.K. Rowling's fiery response to it only shows that she is determined to maintain a stronghold on all items related to Harry Potter. Such a litigious environment can't be healthy for innovation, whether it be with technology or even with books. We should protect the intellectual property of innovators, but that does not warrant a total lack of autonomy for the next generation of thinkers.
Jeff K.
ReplyDeleteNews of copyright and patent cases have really emphasized the issue of the stifling of creativity because of these copyright laws which were originially meant to protect creativity. Now, as Joe Nocura points out, copyrights have allowed people to control their intellectual property which prevents the expansion of creativity. With the case of J.K. Rowling, it seems that she has good intentions of maintaining the control of her intellectual property, the Harry Potter series, but the underlying issue of her trying to create a monopoly of Harry Potter is a big problem. RDR Books should have the right to produce its own books despite it trying to publish something about Rowling's Harry Potter because it is their own collection of thoughts which makes it their books their intellectual property. In the end, copyrights have been abused to stifle other people's creativity and needs to be laxed in order to promote further creativity.
David Pd. 6
ReplyDeleteI understand J.K. Rowling's stance on trying to protect her intellectual property, but I believe it is wrong of her claiming to own anything and everything that relates to Harry Potter which includes a fan book. Based on the article, the book does not reproduce her ideas for a profit, but rather further analyzes her work for Harry Potter fanatics everywhere. I agree with the author of the article in that she is injustly limiting the creativity of her fans by trying to create a monopoly out of her popular book series.
I disagree with J.K. Rowling that RDR books shouldnt be able to make a book about Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling thought of the idea of Harry Potter, but other people can expand her idea even further. She is stunting creativity and economic growth in others. I understand where she is coming from but others should be able to elaborate on her ideas. Throughout history many ideas have been used to make other ideas and they havent improved society. People should be able to make stories and other creations with wizards and stuff. She shouldnt be allowed to make a monopoly.
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Vihar Shah
Personally, I agree with RDR books because although J.K. Rowling was the creator of the famous Harry Potter series, RDR books is solely creating an "encyclopedia" of Harry Potter, which is reasonable. So what if J.K. Rowling created the characters? RDR Books is not publishing a book with a new plot scheme, or imitating characters, but simply an encyclopedia of Harry Potter. This case parallels with the idea of litigation on copyright, because it does hinder creativity. Copyrighters are placing copyrights where there should never have been copyrights. Of the article, this sentence, ". But the law absolutely allows anyone to create something new based on someone else’s art," captures my perspective best. How does J.K. Rowling have the power to decide what a companion book is and if it is allowable?
ReplyDelete-Sahil Parikh AP Micro Period 6
I found this article very interesting because originally J.K. Rowling did not mind having an online, free Harry Potter Lexicon; however, once the creator of the lexicon wanted to sell it in the form of a book, Rowling sued for copyright infringement. I think in general it is very difficult to determine who owns what idea. Overall, this article is just one example that shows how flawed the copyright system is in determining whose ideas are whose.
ReplyDelete-Victoria Poulakis (Period 6-Micro)
This article is relevant to the conversation we had in class one day about the modern day copyrights and how they are more about ideas rather than physical objects. Because I am not a die-hard fan of Harry Potter, I have never heard about this lawsuit or online encyclopedia. However, this article does point out flaw in the copyright system and points to the question of "who really owns the idea?". I understand both perspectives, J.K. Rowling wants to protect what she had created in the first place and Mr. Vander Ark rightfully created the encyclopedia. In spite of this, I also understand that J.K. Rowling would be missing out on a lot of profit from an idea that spawned from her own. Therefore, it is only logical for her to fight for what she wants. However this story is spun, I still believe that J.K. Rowling would only fight for this for the financial aspect.
ReplyDeleteJeff C Per 6
ReplyDeleteWhile everyone is entitled to have protection over their intellectual property, it is ridiculous to push for everything Harry Potter related to be J.K. Rowling's 100% and not any less. The examples in the article to explain how we have cracked down violations of copyrights were Napster and Viacom. Napster should not even be a close comparison because it was a program used to illegally distribute millions of media files vs J.K. Rowling to argue that anyone making money off of even making an encyclopedia to help readers understand different characters in the books. I just feel that if Rowling is able to win her case, every author or musician or entertainer who uses even a snippet of someone else's idea will be getting sued all over the place.
I think that this is a little bit of a stretch for J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers. I see Harry Potter items all the time that are not made by Warner Brothers. How come this small book is the one that they wont stand for? It also makes me wonder how far can they take this. Can they ban Halloween costumes from Harry Potter characters?
ReplyDeletePeter M p.6
AP Micro
Isaac- p.6
ReplyDeleteI thought that this article was very interesting. I think that, in a way, J.K. Rowling is right. Since she came up the whole idea of Harry Potter, nobody should be able to make a profit on these ideas. Now there must be a line drawn, however. She cant have a monopoly over all books about wizards, but she can fight for the case in which Steven Vander tried to publish a book all about Harry Potter. Since Harry Potter was Rowling's idea, she should be able to stop this. I think that this does ultimately give her a monopoly over the market for Harry Potter, in a way, but not completely. She said that she does not mind the website being up about the "encyclopedia of Harry Potter", just as long as nobody tries to make profit by publishing a book based on her ideas.
Aditya Lakhani
ReplyDeleteI thought that this article about Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling maintaining and extending the definition of a monopoly on it was very interesting. I think that there should be a limit on what she controls, because not everything in the Harry Potter world should be under control because the whole situation has grown very large.