Ingratitude and loathing in South Gloucestershire

[unixronin]

Imagine this.  You're writing a book — no, make it a series of books.  All in all, they sell 375 million copies over a ten-year period, plus several feature films, and get translated into 64 languages.  During the course of writing them, you discover that someone has gone to the trouble of collating a whole bunch of reference information for readers of your books, and made it available online for free.  In fact, he's done such a good job of it that you find it useful as a reference yourself, and make extensive use of it while you finish your books.  You even give him an award for the site.

Later, after your books are finished, he decides to publish his reference to your work.

[Poll #1181122]

Well, it sort of depends on whether you're J. K. Rowling, doesn't it?

Personally, while I'm as likely to disagree with Orson Scott Card's positions on various things as agree with them, I think he has Rowling dead to rights here.  Most people would be quite satisfied with having become the 13th richest woman in Britain (and that's including the royal family) and the highest-earning novelist in history.  But it seems becoming rich has made Rowling greedy.

Comments

Nothing new

[ossuarian.livejournal.com]

I don't understand the anger at Rowling. If I was on the jury, I'm not sure which way I'd decide on the case. I really don't see the people who are outraged by this. How many sites has Fox shut down because of their description of some property of theirs? Those are for web sites paying homage to a show, not books that are in depth descriptions using quotes from other books.

I'm not sure if it's going to be a successful legal battle. I'm not sure if it's one I agree with. It's not unique, unprecedented or farcical. If you're going to rage at this, stand outside a New York courthouse and glare at intellectual property plaintiffs all day.

Card's article is lost under a sea of Slashdot traffic, so I haven't seen it. What I've heard secondhand is that he's saying the suit comes from Rowling's bitterness that her hit series is over and she's no longer considered relevant. If that is one of his points, I think it's projection on Card's part.

Re: Nothing new

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

What annoys me is the hypocrisy involved. When she was profiting from his work, using it to help her get her books written, that was fine by her. Now that she's filthy rich, he stands to make a little profit based on hers, that doesn't impact her profits in any way¹, and she's all over his ass. If she found his work so useful she gave him an award for it, you'd think she could stand to let him make a few bucks off it.


[1] Except that now, of course, after the fact, she's decided she meant to publish a cross-reference book like that all along.