Newest Harry Potter due in July: Time for J.K. to authorize legal e-books?

After shedding crocodile tears for Scholastic or Time-Warner (which own and control the Harry Potter IP empire), I have to wonder when Rowling will finally embrace fan fiction ebooks . Underground fan fiction like Tanya Grotter is not only culturally more significant than Harry Potter, it also promotes the Harry Potter trademark. I have to ask: who is the real greedster here: those who pirate or those who prevent derivative works?

I agree that denying legal ePublication gives a moral figleaf to those who choose to pirate. And it would be nice if all high profile authors would wake up to the potential of our market and actively embrace it rather than fight it. Still, piracy is a HUGE problem and we in the industry, even those of us who agree that DRM is a problem as well as a solution, need to be aware of this.

Authoring is difficult and creative authors, like JK Rowling, deserve to be rewarded for their efforts. I for one, don’t begrudge her a penny of her earnings. But it might be a good thing this is her last Harry Potter. After all, if she doesn’t change her eBook stance, there may come a time when hers are the only paper books left.

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

From a NYT article: “Last year, several bookstore chains, including Barnes & Noble and Borders, mentioned the lack of a Harry Potter hardcover as a reason for declining sales in the second quarter.”

The two largest bookstores in America blaming their declining sales on…one author’s failure to deliver a book? The book industry must have a lot of problems if believes its commercial health so dependent on a single author. If the author gets writer’s block, will the publishing industry just collapse? Maybe if we had fewer emphasis on blockbusters and more emphasis on long tail publishing, the book industry wouldn’t be in such miserable condition.

Sure, write derivative works. Literature is derivation.

My sympathies are with authors rather than with megarich corps that want to protect cash cows. That said, let me ask: Robert, on what do you base the claim that Yemets’ work is more “culturally significant” than Rowlings’? Have you read both?

In what way does she need to embrace fan fiction ebooks? How is that relevant to her?

“My sympathies are with authors rather than with megarich corps that want to protect cash cows.”

Heck, Robert, I’m against theft by or from anyone. Without doubt, the eBay sellers are stealing.

To get the books out there, it’s far better to use the library model as opposed to brooking piracy.

Wealth distribution? You bet I share your outrage. But changes in tax laws are a far better way to go.

As for fan fiction, it’s a book-by-book, author-by-author decision. I do think writers should have the option of choosing the arrangements.

Usual IMHO disclaimer.

Thanks,
David

IANAL. Derivative works is an artificial legal construct created by Congress in 1976. Its primary purpose was to prevent people from reprinting things and then claiming originality (because of a few changed words or punctuation marks). In its present form, it is used to forbid people from reusing characters or story environments. I feel that is wrong and unworkable. (I’ll write more about this later). See Kembrew McLeod’s book Freedom of Expression for more.

I reiterate: derivative works as a US legal concept is only 30 years old. It could easily be discarded with a single act of congress or Supreme Court decision.

In an age where copyright allows owners to forbid derivative works, Ms. Rowling should take a public stand allowing creative reuses of her work. It would enhance her reputation considerably and allow the characters to enter not just commercial culture but pop culture as well.

With regard to Harry vs. Tanya, I begin with the premise that works from pop culture & underground are by definition more enduring and interesting than works of commercial culture. Yes, I see the paradox in faulting commercially successful works for being “sell-outs.” Hopefully there is a way for works to be commercially successful and not end up restricting the free speech rights of those who consume it. I don’t see those two goals as being incompatible.

I find the lines between underground and commercial blurry in this one. Rowling, of course, was a poor single parent whose anti-authoritarian and anti-materialist sensibility has made her a billionaire capable of stopping other authors in their tracks. Yemets boasts of selling over 500,000 copies of his work in Russia while claiming its plot lifting is sheer parody.

“Heck, Robert, I’m against theft by or from anyone.” Sure, but in fact copyright violation and trademark infringement are billy clubs not infrequently used against parodists. This is possible because the law is fungible and the courts responsive to power, and not always due to “theft.”

Yes, copyright has been a weapon against parodies–The Wind Done Gone is another case–and I heartily dislike such censorship. But that’s a different issue from fan fiction.

Meanwhile please note that with shorter copyright terms, these issues wouldn’t arise as often. I’d love to see Bono repealed.

Also, as a practical matter, smart writer and publishers could use fan fiction to their advantage in many cases. What a great way to drive traffic to authors’ sites and maybe send ad money in the direction of both the original writers and the originators of derivative works. Depends. An author doing a series might be less open to derivative fiction than one who wanted to move on to other characters.

Thanks,
David

I just read that J. K. Rowlings writes her books in longhand. Maybe it’s not a huge surprise that she isn’t a great spokesperson for technology.

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