A young eleven-year-old, with green eyes and perennially disheveled hair, finds himself precipitously propelled into student life at a renowned school of wizardry over which hangs a sombre and threatening miasma. … The young novice is befriended and supported by an engaging group of first-year students, especially an intrepid girl with unusual hair and a boy who is the loyal best friend who sustains the novice’s courage. Looming over the life of the school is the malevolent power of a former magister, a professor who has embraced the evil powers …

The article points out additional parallels; however, it does not claim that J. K. Rowling is a plagiarist. Instead it notes that “The formula is a time-honored one, combining as it does the camaraderie of the school story with the suspense and mystery of the fantasy story.”

On taxing backlist books–iirc, the reason publishers were required to pay taxes on their warehoused inventory was because they wrote it off as a loss, then continued to sell it. When told they couldn’t do that, it did lead to publishers pulping more books and books going out of print more quickly. But I kind of see why it happened. (Now, of course, they could just keep the .pdf file and print on demand, never give up their publication rights and never have to spend another dime, which is causing concern among authors. I wonder if first publication rights could last longer than copyright?

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/mansfield/garden/garden.html

Copyright is not going away. Helprin’s article suggests that he has no idea what it is he wishes to protect. As Joanna points out, there is the physical fruits of the labor that is protected. Ingenious authors and heirs can find some way or wringing more money from this work.

Fine. Of course, that’s what I want. But if this is the case, what does copyright protect? Plagiarism? Derivatives? Does IP cover the characters? The plot? The McGuffin devices used the novel? Helprin’s piece is clear on one thing: he doesn’t know what it is he’s protecting. And the real problem is that when the copyright is enforced, there are only a few people who have to power to decide whether the infringement rises above some threshold which he deemed outright copying.

My point is that authors ought to have their works protect insofar as it allows them to send it to a publisher and not have someone rip off your cover page and stick their own on it. But that’s already the case. However, the types of arguments Helprin makes seduces rational people – because he is right. There is that strong desire to pass wealth off to the kids. So long as Helprin confuses protection of derivation and protection from plagiarism, and he stands on a higher and more visible soapbox than you and me, then we have that huge duty to rephrase the argument.

Yes, JK Rowling is short-sighted in that she does not wish what amounts to fan fiction and unauthorized works. I don’t care about the argument that others can or cannot use the characters from her book. I do care when this argument will eventually be subverted by IP lawyers to bring lawsuits against people who write about children wizards who go to school. The problem with protection from derivation is that the “protection” is extensible. I fear that lawsuits and enforcement practices will lead to broader and broader definitions of derivatives. Which means that it is only a matter of time until someone makes the silly (in practice), but legally correct argument, that all talking animals are derivatives of Mickey Mouse. Or that DC can sue the pants of Marvel and all other comic publishers because all superheroes with superpowers are essentially knock offs of Superman and all superheroes without superpowers are copies of Batman.

And since public domain has too much of the “freedom from” rights associated with it, one must re-pitch this argument to include Creative Commons sorts of “affirmative rights” – such as the ability to keep the central work intact – and explicitly, if redundantly, let authors know that their books are sacrosanct – but allows for original works based on the same universe. That is, in a sense, the price one pays for being an author. Who’s the say that the “seeding” didn’t come from a piece that was pivotal in the artist’s development?

I admit I haven’t said anything different from pro-CC folks. I wrote my comment because I was distressed at the confusion on Helprin’s part about what he wants to protect. I think it is important to point out, if redundantly that without something like public domain or CC, we’ll be burdened with lawsuits from lawyers who aggressively cast a wider net to include more and more general cases (i.e. again, suing an author for writing a story that includes the basic plot of “boy meets girl”.) And you know if it can be done, it will be done. It is a matter of time.

It reminds me of the desperation through which the music industry is clinging to their outmoded business model and saying it’s the only way while people like Jonathan Coulton are doing just fine forging a new way. Or the way the publishing industry is saying e-books are ging to kill us all while podcaster Scott Sigler just signed a six figure deal. As I said The clever will always find a way to do whatever they want to. If J.K. Rowling thinks she can stop people from writing future derivative Harry Potter works by killing everybody off (as I have seen her allege in interviews) than she has a very limited business imagination and she is being ridiculous. Killing everybody off now doesn’t stop a future Gregory McGuire from writing a “Wicked” style account of Dumbledore’s childhood. Nor does it stop anyone from reviving any of the other characters either—the book is about magic, for heaven’s sake And a hundred years from now? It would be fair use. J.K.’s great-grandchildren can earn their keep just like the rest of us. And if they are so worried about the potential of a “Dumbledore’s childhood” book, let them write it themsevles and profit accordingly.

Sorry to be so long-winded, David I guess I am just passionate about this topic. And I should add, I am a writer too and it does not threaten me at all to suppose that my work will enter the public domain after a reasonable period.

Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

This above quote from the article suggests Helprin hasn’t a clue about ebooks. He seems to view “public domain” as letting publishers offer (and profit from) low cost print editions. We should not scorn him; instead, we should pity his ignorance.

That brings up an interesting question. If publishers offer ebooks, which are nothing but data, wouldn’t they be able to offer books forever, without the tax burden? If so, books need never go out of print again.