Comments (24)

• Matthew

  To the pro-IP commenters who will undoubtedly show up, could you explain to me why IP is legitimate. Specifically, is their legitimacy a fact that is plainly obvious, not to ever be disputed, like 2+2=4? Is it because one labors to create/discover the idea? What do property rights (more generally) entitle one to? Not to be deprived of the use of his property, or the ability to exclude others from using his property? Are those two versions of rights entitlements the same thing or subtly different?

  Published: June 17, 2009 4:04 PM

• Justin P

  I've read a lot of HP fan fiction that is really quite good. I remember reading 3 book 7's before JKR's came out...1 of them was actually better than the official version.

  The type of money machine HP is, and the fact that JKR isn't going to write anymore, you'd think Scholastic would be lining up writers for more books, like the Star Wars books.

  Published: June 17, 2009 4:06 PM

• Vitor

  The last book was harryble.

  Published: June 17, 2009 4:20 PM

• Jesse

  How interesting to read this post today! I am new to the series and finally began reading it a while ago. I'm currently halfway through The Half Blood Prince (book 6) and was wondering about any forthcoming spin-offs.... at least now I can maybe check out "Willy the Wizard" if I want a similar book... I guess.

  Maybe George Lucas should also sue Rowling... I mean come on, a young man or boy, lives with his aunt and uncle, parents dead, has magical powers...

  Being anti-IP makes cynicism so much more apparent.

  Published: June 17, 2009 6:19 PM

• kmeisthax

  Those that claim that they can own an idea, that they own all the ideas they make, must tell us then why so many ideas are similar to other ideas, and why -they- deserve protection?

  Published: June 17, 2009 6:32 PM

• Asker

  A scenario and questions for the Pro-IP users:

  Imagine a few people in another world.

  Person A is the owner of a house and a few acres of land. He also owns a piece of paper and a computer and printer.

  Person B also owns a house and a few acres of land.

  Imagine there are other person living in this world. These other persons are all authors and write down their ideas.

  Imagine much time passing, so that these other persons wrote many stories.

  Questions:
  What if A and/or B heard of these stories and wrote them down on their own property (or used their computers to write and print those stories)?

  Would they be allowed to use their own property in that way? Or would it be forbidden for them to write down the stories, which were developed after A and B became owner of their sheets of paper and their computers etc.?

  Imagine that there was an enormous amount of stories. Could it be in your opinion, that A and B were not allowed to write anything down, because all the other people "owned the words written in a certain pattern"?

  Is in your opinion the right on your intellectual "property" higher than the right in your physical property? What about homesteading?

  How is this "intellectual property" different from all other state enforced monopolies?

  Published: June 17, 2009 7:07 PM

• John

  I find it quite ironic how Rowling and her publishers feel about IP. They get all this credit and acclaim for promoting reading in today's youth (which they deserve) yet if they really were interested in promoting the art of literature they would let their audience replicate and expand on what they accomplished to create a universe of fantasy literature that could keep children reading for ages.

  If you can't touch it, you can't own it.

  Published: June 17, 2009 7:31 PM

• newson

  poetic justice.

  Published: June 17, 2009 7:31 PM

• Scott Bieser

  I have to wonder, though, if without copyright, would there be a Harry Potter series? Would Rowling, who was impoverished while writing the first book, have devoted the time to creating such a well-crafted story, without the hope of making money from it?

  Would a publisher have paid her anything beyond the small initial advance after selling 5 million copies? Would copy-cat publishers have been able to make millions of dollars publishing her work while Rowling languished in a London slum?

  Does anyone see any problem with this scenario?
  

  Published: June 17, 2009 8:14 PM

• BioTube

  Mr. Bieser, nobody could publish her work under his name, since plagiarism is fraud; in addition, the publisher would've been under contract to pay her before the advance was in place, so she would've gotten compensated for her works; however, I'll admit she clearly wouldn't be as wealthy as she is.

  Published: June 17, 2009 8:43 PM

• jeffrey

  Mr. Bieser and I have been back and forth on private email. the point I made to him is that 19th century british authors made more money selling to copyright-free zones than from royalties in their own country -- which is why we Americans are so infatuated by British literature. It was read and spread all through the 19th century precisely because it was not protected by monopoly -- and the authors made the money.

  Published: June 17, 2009 8:45 PM

• Sovy Kurosei

  Scott Bieser

  Would Rowling, who was impoverished while writing the first book, have devoted the time to creating such a well-crafted story, without the hope of making money from it?

  She was on welfare.

  Scott Bieser

  Would copy-cat publishers have been able to make millions of dollars publishing her work while Rowling languished in a London slum?

  I don't think copycat publishers would be able to make millions. They would be competing with all the other copycat publishers since they are free to reprint a story.

  Interestingly the story would have to be at first a success before a publisher would risk reprinting a story. No point in throwing resources at making five thousand copies of a flop.

  If you really want to cut the legs out under 'republishers' then provide the book, for free, in electronic form and then offer a service to buy a physical copy of the book.

  There are also creative ways to add value to the book or to get money. Maybe take a commission to use someones name as bit character in the book. Or even pay to decide the title of the book. Or take donations on the direction a book or plot point should go from the readers. There is also the ransom business model where you won't release a book unless you get X amount of dollars. A lot of these options are not really practical for an author publishing their first book but it has always been the case that the first book will be a loss leader.

  You have to identify the things that are under your control and those that aren't. Once you put a book out anybody is free to copy it, laws be damned. But you can decide what you put out in the first place. Take advantage of that.

  Published: June 17, 2009 9:01 PM

• Shay

  kmeisthax, exactly; if one really believes in intellectual property, he must admit that most of his creations are crafted out of other intellectual property, and thus that he is not the owner, much as me chiseling a statue out of someone else's rock doesn't make me the owner of the rock.
  

  Published: June 17, 2009 9:06 PM

• Alvaro

  Harry Potter borrow from "The Adventures of Willy the Wizard"??
  Now wait a minute! I thought that first!!!

  Published: June 17, 2009 9:21 PM

• Kakugo

  That's an old trick to draw attention to your poorly successful novel: claim some hugely succesful author like Dan Brown copied it and maybe take them to court. That's completely free advertisement on all the world major medias.

  Published: June 18, 2009 12:45 AM

• Emil Suric

  How ridiculous. If we listened to these IP fanatics, Hollywood would come to an end, and novels would cease to be written. Stop and ask yourself; how many writers and filmmakers have "drawn upon" Paradise Lost within the past century?

  Published: June 18, 2009 2:08 AM

• KP

  Another terrible attempt by the creator's of Willy the Wizards family to try to cohert money from Scholastic/Bloomsbury.

  This whole IP mess is getting out of control and needs to be taken back to the original purpose or removed completely.

  Published: June 18, 2009 6:06 AM

• Ramakrishna Aitha

  There would be one thing for sure. Either the quality of the film would get enhanced or the book sellers would find their good days.. I feel both the obvious should be welcomed as poeple interested in movies watch their best and those interested to read would find some good time..........

  Published: June 18, 2009 6:54 AM

• Current

  There are many similar sorts of children's novels in the UK. A whole genre of them involved teenagers becoming witches or wizards. I remember reading them when I was young. The Worst Witch series by Jill Murphy and the books by Alan Garner.
  

  Published: June 18, 2009 8:16 AM

• Jindrich Vavruska

  To Sovy Kurosei:
  I would consider copycat publishing as fraud. If JKR dedicated so much time to write the book, she should be entitled to decide how to publish (or not to publish) her work. This makes good sense to me.

  Her right should be effective only while she lives.

  The right to write spin-off stories should not be limited or intervened into by the author of the original story. I can see no practical, justified reasons for that.

  Published: June 18, 2009 10:00 AM

• Toby

  What would you say if someone copied an already existing novel, sells it and won't share his gains with the author?

  Published: June 18, 2009 10:20 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  JKR wrote several novels in the Harry Potter series. After the success of the first one, even without IP, the publishers would be going back to her to write the subsequent novels. Her success was in being a good writer, regardless of IP, and the subsequent novels proved that her first wasn't just a lucky accident or fluke.
  
  To put it in more visual terms, Who can draw like Scott Bieser? If Scott has a big, runaway success with a comic, graphic novel, or what-have-you, who will publishers turn to for more Scott Bieser work? It would take a very very good artist to faithfully copy Scott's style, and artists who are that good are probably making more money doing their own style than copying someone else's style--it most likely would not be worthwhile for them.

  Published: June 18, 2009 12:23 PM

• Daniel

  Jesse,

  http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/61074_harrypotterstarwars.jpg

  Published: June 18, 2009 3:31 PM

• Vanmind

  Sure, even Borges considered himself a mere reflection of Homer and Shakespeare.

  Published: June 18, 2009 4:41 PM