?

Log in

No account? Create an account
recent cases Bob-Whites closed cases case file old leads old leads new leads new leads
Harry Potter: One more thing. - Walking on the Edge
I don't really have a plan...
foresthouse
foresthouse
Harry Potter: One more thing.
**NOTE: This rant is not aimed at anyone here. This is what happens when I read the comments left by people on news pages covering this story, most of which are ignorant and ridiculous. And make me mad.**

Y'all! I know you, my intelligent journal-readers know this, but not everybody out there seems to be able to grasp the concept, so let me just say it here, loud and clear:

STEVE VANDER ARK IS NOT A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE. HE NEVER WAS. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE CAN AFFORD SIX FREAKIN' THOUSAND DOLLARS, OK? BECAUSE HE WON'T BE PAYING IT. LUCKY HIM.

It is RDR Books and slimy Rapoport, the guy who lied to people about the possibilities of a lawsuit, stalled JKR's lawyers, and kept selling the rights to foreign publishers even after this all started going down, who will have to pay.

And I? Am A-OK with that.

Also, before people take sides on this thing, they should at least KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE. The judge didn't just close his eyes and flip a coin and decide JKR should win. There are sound, logical reasons for his decision.

Oh. And JKR exercising her right to enforce her copyrights does not make her a witch, a meany, a bad person, a heinous bitch, or any other combination of insulting words people can dig up to throw at her. I mean, I don't know the woman, and frankly, I wouldn't care if she was a heinous bitch, although it seems unlikely given what I've seen of her in the media and given her charity work and whatever - but no matter what her personality is, she still has the same rights that we all do regarding copyright, and that's as it should be. Would anyone out there want their copyright rights to be any different just because they happened to be mean or have money? No, I am sure they would not.

Oh, and also: Why in the hell should how much money she has now have anything to do with whether she can or should enforce her rights? Would anyone say that rich celebrities don't have, say, the same right to go to a sale and use a sale coupon, just because they are rich? She earned her money by working, and she's trying to protect what she worked for and created. WHAT is wrong with that?

ETA: And something lberghol said reminded me that I wanted to note: One reason I am glad that Rowling did pursue her rights here is that she *is* able to do so, by dint of being a wealthy author. It costs money to go to court and have good lawyers and all of that, and she could afford to do it. If she hadn't, then it might have led to the proverbial "slippery slope" for her and for other authors regarding what other people could do with their rights. Not because her not going to court over this would mean she lost the right to do so, but because others might not be able to pursue it due to lack of funds, etc., so there might be a de facto change in how much liberty others felt they could take with authors' works and not be penalized for it. THAT is one reason I am glad she did what she did - at least now, we have one circuit court's opinion on how the law stands now, affirming that authors do have some protected rights that can't be abridged without permission.

Tags: , , , , ,
Trixie feels: aggravated aggravated

5 clues shared or share a clue
Comments
lberghol From: lberghol Date: September 9th, 2008 02:16 pm (UTC) (current file)
Dood you are awesome...AMEN AMEN!!! I am SO CONFUSED with people who are upset by the ruling...I mean...uhm...LAWS, ya'know?
foresthouse From: foresthouse Date: September 9th, 2008 03:19 pm (UTC) (current file)
I can understand people being like, "Oh, we like to root for the underdog," or "JKR has so much, why would she bother?" or whatever. But the thing is, if she didn't bother, it could lead to the proverbial "slippery slope" with her AND other authors less able to take on a case like this, and could lead to a de facto loss of rights because no one else might have the money to protest this kind of abuse of authors' rights.

So I say, more power to her for testing the law on this point and getting the judge to say where (at least in one circuit court) it stands now.
cynnalia From: cynnalia Date: September 9th, 2008 04:49 pm (UTC) (current file)
Well said. Artists of all kinds get their copyrights stomped on all the time and I'm glad that those that can afford to defend them, like JKR, do.
foresthouse From: foresthouse Date: September 9th, 2008 08:51 pm (UTC) (current file)
It's not like I encourage litigation over every little thing. But this? BIG issue. I just couldn't even conceive of her sitting back and not trying to do something about someone trying to make a buck using, essentially, her words. O_o
sucrelefey From: sucrelefey Date: September 9th, 2008 07:01 pm (UTC) (current file)
Yes. Those of us who have zip nil nada for resources are dependent on the creators who do to hold the line for the rights of all.
When creators who could fight turn a blind eye to something they leave openings for others to be wrongfully exploited.
5 clues shared or share a clue