More Rowling and the Nature of “Ownership” in this, the Digital Age.
First off, thanks to c and Kerri. How did I know that the Normalinauts would have my back?
Although, as I watch the site views continue to bump up I was hoping that more people would leave comments. As I said to gilgrim earlier today (via gchat) it’s good for the soul to be told to take your own head out of your ass. And I really do believe that.
But I’ve been thinking more and more about this whole thing because, as an aspiring writer, how this lawsuit plays out may (godz willing) one day effect me and my own “intellectual property.”
Now if this isn’t about the money, as Ms. Rowling has said (and I don’t entirely believe that), and it isn’t about her work being “perverted” in some way (since the HP Lexicon is, essentially, a catalog) then the only thing it can be about, as c mentioned, is control.
Rowling stated in her testimony that the HP books felt like her children. Now, I’m not sure what her children think of that, and by the way it took me nearly a decade…admittedly I wasn’t consistently writing that whole time…to finish my first novel and guess what, given the choice of having to burn the only copy of my book and getting my daughter, guess which one I’d choose in a heartbeat. But that seems like an odd metaphor to me. The fact of the matter is, every writer writes so that people will read his/her writing. It’s that simple. You create something to, essentially, give to other people…and hopefully make a few bucks while you’re at it. Tim Powers (we all know of my love for Powers) says that he is skeptical of any writer claiming not to care how big his audience is. Every writer wants as big an audience as possible. But something odd happens once the writer has finished writing and that manuscript has now become a book that people buy and read. And now I’m going to excerpt from another one of my personal lords and saviors, Neil Gaiman:
(Quick note, the italics are mine)
I once – at the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, in Florida, some years ago – went to a presentation of three papers on my work (one of which is reprinted here), and after each paper was presented, I was asked if I would like to make some reply, which is honestly a bit like asking someone who has just undergone an autopsy if he’d like to talk about the experience. (My replies varied, at least in memory, from “Er, thanks. That was very nice of you,” to an “Er, with respect, if you read the issue you’ve cited, I don’t believe it actually says what you think it does”. But possibly I just smiled and nodded.)
Those were, however – with the exception of pointing out the occasional objective mistake – simply my opinions, and I don’t consider them to be privileged. Once you’ve written something it’s not yours any longer: it belongs to other people, and they all have opinions about it, and every single one of those opinions is as correct as that of the author – more so, perhaps. Because those people have read the work as something perfectly new, and, barring amnesia, an author is never going to be able to do that. There will be too many ghost-versions of the story in the way, and besides, the author cannot read it for the first time, wondering what happens next, comparing it to other things that he or she has read.
That comes from Mr. Gaiman’s forward for a book of scholarly papers written about the Sandman. And while Gaiman is addressing a different topic altogether, the sentiment, I think, is the same. I tried unsuccessfully to find an interview I read some year’s ago with George Lucas. I’ll have to paraphrase, but basically Lucas said that, upon the original publication of Splinter of the Mind’s Eye he realized that the universe he had created was much larger then he thought, and it contained many more stories then he could ever tell, and people wanted to hear those stories. In the same way that Gaiman stated that, once you publish a novel, it’s no longer yours, when you are a George Lucas, or a JK Rowling, you create something so large and complex that connects with people in such a way that you cannot ever be the only one to “control” it.
In her testimony Rowling said that if the HP Lexicon were published that she would then be very discouraged about completing a reference book on her own, and my response to that is, “why?” If anything, I would think that it would motivate her that much more, in an effort to publish the “official” reference guide to HP. Or maybe that’s just me…
But let’s change gears for just a moment. We live in a time when broadband internet connections and digital content are the norm. Consider the digital distribution of both Radiohead’s and NiN’s most recent albums. Both of these groups have fan bases that can be described as “dedicated” (although, rabid might be a better term). I would hazard a guess that the HP fan base is at least as dedicated. Did Radiohead or NiN lose money by releasing new albums for free? No. Did they make as much as they might have by going a more traditional route? Who knows. But what I do know is that each of these bands successfully recognized that we are no longer in a black and white “copyright” world. Are these two instances directly related to the current Rowling v. HP Lexicon battle…no. But I think they are instructive. People are going to (more and more as the years go by, I’d wager) increasingly see copyright and ownership of intellectual property as a negotiable state of existence whether or not Rowling wins this case.
Again, I’m going to refer to Gaiman. His publisher recently agreed to host, for an entire month, a freely accessible full digital version of one of his novels (it was American Gods, his largest by far). You know what happened during that month? Sales of the book spiked!
The HP Lexicon, I am convinced, would not take away from Rowling’s potential to continue earning money off of her intellectual property. That will be, trust me, the defining characteristic of copyright law/decisions in the years to come. Not, did that person use your material, but did that person in some way cause you to lose revenue off of your material. The fact of the matter is, HP does not belong to Rowling alone. It belongs to every one who has read and enjoyed the books. She may feel that the books are “her children” but to the rest of us, they are our friends, and as much as she wants to control them, she can’t. It isn’t the 1800’s and you aren’t Dickens, Ms. Rowling.
My guess is, if the HP Lexicon is allowed to be published it will sell decently, but if you, Ms. Rowling, do actually finish your own HP reference work, that one will be gobbled up like mother fucking manna from heaven!
Ms. Rowling, you created something so unique and special that people connected with it in a deeply emotional way. Take a cue from Lucas, Radiohead and Trent Reznor and let go. You may find it quite freeing. And if that doesn’t help, you can always cry yourself to sleep on a mountain sized pile of $100 bills.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
April 15th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
What you said about her lexicon being superior is very true since she can put in things that never even appear in the books(which I have heard was the whole point in doing the lexicon.) If it were me, this would motivate me to get my ass in gear. Not only that but to make sure mine was better. Also I would probably contradict some minor point in the other one just to f with everyone, like Harry only has 20/20 vision but wears glasses to avoind being beaten up by bullies since british people have good manners and make it a point not to hit guys in glasses(what are they going to do I created it.)
After all, we live in a capitalist society. He’ll make a little money and then Rowling will come in with the superior product and the market will judge. (I’ll let you in on a secret, 5-10 years from now Rowlings will be the only lexicon anyone will care about).
It’s true what you said about all the pre book 7 books. I’ll expound a bit to help prove my above point. Not long after the 7th book came out the bookstore where I works flagged just about all of those books to be sent back to publishers for credit. I have a feeling something similar would happen if both of these books see the light of a bookstore.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“It isn’t the 1800’s and you aren’t Dickens, Ms. Rowling.”
tee hee.
Anyways, i agree. When you write some thing so massive there is no way you can control it.
By the by, anybody hear about the Orphan Work Legislative thingy that is i guess trying to get passed….should we worry about this?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Good God Spooky! You’re the most well informed teen I think I’ve ever met on the interwebz. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about that yet…mostly because I haven’t yet finished (or gotten very far in) this here
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf
What I will say is that, basically, to seek damages for copyright infringement you must register the copyright. That’s the case now and I can’t see where the proposed Orphan legislation will change that. But some of the language in the report seems to be just bad and/or imprecise. I would hope that any actual legislation would change and clarify much of the language I’ve read, but with our Congress, maybe that’s asking a too much.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:05 am
What we’re looking at here, with this and similar lawsuits related to copyrights and intellectual property rights, is a sort of “old-guard/new-guard” phenomenon. It isn’t unexpected.
Simply put, the digital age is changing our notions of ownership and what it represents…but change comes slowly. Ms. Rowling and her proponents are members of the old-guard. She has created something, and she owns it… it is her sandbox, and only she is allowed to say who can and cannot come over to play in it. She isn’t alone. Run a quick search on lawsuits in the last ten years and you’ll see no shortage of cases just like this.
The trouble is, digital distribution, the internet, file-sharing, and the general ease with which joe-schmoe can acquire information have drastically changed the traditional business model, but not those that have grown accustomed to using it and profiting by it. Is Ms. Rowling in the right? It isn’t possible to say, because our ideas of what it means to own something are changing. However, she is going to win her case… that much is almost certain. The old-guard has too much at stake to let her lose. A loss for her here is a loss for the status quo, which too many lawyer-filled companies have too much interest in maintaining.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:44 am
I couldn’t add anything to your last comments, Kilian, because they were pretty much my own. Ms. Rowling will remain the iconic rags-to-riches, spontaneously explosive popular author of this decade, if not this century. Her place in literary history is assured.
(Off topic, but has anyone noticed that people are paying attention to the names of children’s authors more now than they did twenty years ago? When I was growing up, past Beverly Cleary and Laura Ingalls Wilder, I couldn’t name one author I read. But now. Rowling. Snicket. Jacques. Pullman. Stine. Now we’re not just turning out bestselling books but superstar authors. Does anyone find that odd?)
But to play temporary devil’s advocate, I’d like to make two points. First is that Ms. Rowling’s only publications, the only books she ever wrote, are the Potter books. To paraphrase Stephen King, the little bit of time between the first draft and first edit, while you wait for your pages to age and your mind to clear, “you are fucking Shakespeare.” Despite any reviews to the contrary, the money doesn’t lie. Rowling’s books are good. She’s still riding that high of ending her series, cashing the checks, and finishing a job she set out for herself ten years ago. Potter Seven isn’t even a year old yet. She’s still ‘fucking Shakespeare‘.
Another thing I’d like to point out to Kilian is that you can’t make the children analogy because… well… you’re a guy. It’s not an either/or, it’s an in addition to. Her real children and her literary children. Rowling feels like she raised Potter and pals because she… did. She has a sentimental attachment to them, and it’s also coloring what she’s doing now.
So take the attitude and her personal feelings and add a little human selfishness. You get a woman who’s still feeling very accomplished, very proud, and very protective. She might feel that the Lexicon is stealing her thunder. She might not feel ready for someone else to take a swing at her ‘children’. She might not feel ready to share.
My advice to Mr. Vander Ark would have been initially to not try to publish his Lexicon till Potter Seven was past its first birthday. It still is. Let things cool down before you open the floodgates of sharing a property. Give Rowling a little maternal space. It’s not like Harry Potter will fade in the next two years.
My second point. Unlike several high profile authors and publishers, Rowling has not only allowed, but encouraged fan fiction. She has whole sites of just Potter fics. (And some of them are absolutely excellent, too.) At fanficion.net, the number of Potter fics is currently holding at a little over 350,000. The next popular has 40,000, and the next after that, 19,000. For an author to encourage kids to take her characters and reinterpret them takes confidence, I think. (Especially considering the age of her fan base and all the horrid things they can come up with.)
So looking at the lawsuits now, I’m not quite as angry knowing these things, but still. It’s envogue to sue people when you’ve got something, and there’s no doubt there’s a stream of lawyers knocking at her door with this or that to ‘take a look over’. If Rowling knows what’s good for her image and her books, she’ll stop this nonsense.
Eh. That was long.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Well, I may not be a woman, but I think I can understand the children analogy because 1) I have a kid and 2) I have spent a significant amount of time writing a book, and to me, the two are so different that just to make the analogy speaks, on the part of Rowling, to how she relates her work to the greater world. And that is where, I believe, she has problems.
The fact of the matter is, as current copyright law is written and interprated, Rowling is within her rights here. I completely believe she will win. And, as suavo pointed out, she has the WB and their money and lawyers backing her. The actual suit is Warner Brothers and JK Rowling vs. RDR Books. What upsets me is that, across the range of entertainment media, we are seeing (with few notable exceptions) creators and owners (WB, in this case) cling to old interpretations of what it means to hold the copyright on something. I really believe that in year’s to come issue of copyright infringement are going to come down to two questions 1) Did a person steal your work before you could profit of of it, or 2) Did a person, in any way, damage your ability to profit from your creation. The current case of the Lexicon would not satisfy either of those requirements, and that is why I think it is foolish for Rowling and WB to continue with the trial (and as a sidenote, the judge has mentioned more then once that he wished the case would settle since, in his view, it could go to the Supreme Court eventually). I think her encouragement of fan fiction is evidence that, in some ways, she gets that copyright isn’t what it used to be. She’s getting snippy in this case because the Lexicon does what it says it does, catalogs the information in the books, but it doesn’t in any way compete with them since it isn’t fiction (unlike, say, the fan fiction). It just uses the books as a source material to serve a different function.
I really don’t think this will damage her image much, though. Having trolled a number of fan site comments over the last few days, it seems that her fans are (for the most part) behind her…to such a degree, in fact, that if she admitted to running over someone while driving drunk, her fans would still defend her…at least, that’s the impression I get.