Holden and Harry and Salinger and Rowling and their Attorneys

[rattlesnakeroot]

Michael Wolff on Newser.com has an essay about litigious authors, mentioning J. D. Salinger and J. K. Rowling as two of the most prominent:

From I Am Holden Caufield

The best client you could have if you are an intellectual property lawyer is JD Salinger. The second best is JK Rowling. This is because they are both extremely litigious, guarantee

Comments

[saiphgrl]

I've had many a conversation about Salinger in regards to JKR's litigiousness. I'm glad others have made the connection, too!

[aredwitch]

In terms of culture and art, with the internet, we are entering into a brave new world that is far more democratic and inclusive than the art world used to be. It can only be good for us in the long run.

[rattlesnakeroot]

I absolutely agree.

[lunas_ceiling]

Really someone should let him know Rowling only blocked a draft of the Lexicon but failed to block the book. That is a whole lot of effort for something that could have obviously been worked out had JKR been inclined to do so.

It does make you wonder how they will reconcile intellectual property law with the internet. Clearly the laws need some revision as does the business model of publishers and music. I read the other day that a woman was hit with a multi million dollar fine for downloading something like 24 songs. This is beyond absurd with the amount of corruption out there.

[rattlesnakeroot]

You would think the record companies would go after the major bootleggers instead of some poor woman just trying to get a few songs for free. To me the corporations get what they deserve for keeping CD prices high doing away with CD singles. People feel like idiots having to pay $20 for a CD burned onto a 50-cent disc with 5 cents worth of printed cardboard for a cover. The record companies treated us like idiots, and now they make themselves look like idiots for going after grandma's and college students.

I'm confused

[teaqueenie]

But then, I spend most of my time confused. I'm not sure I understand the point of this essay. Is he upset that JKR and Salinger don't go after websites, fan fiction, etc? He also doesn't seem to have done his research. If we're talking obsessive copyright protectors, I think Tolkein's estate and Joyce's estate best Rowling.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Salinger not wanting someone to publish a sequel to Catcher. I can't blame any author who wants to block another from taking their characters and writing new stories.

Re: I'm confused

[rattlesnakeroot]

I thought the writer was just musing on the difference between litigation over books and litigation over internet sites, which is nearly nonexistent. As we've talked about many times before, JKR praised the Lexicon when it was free on the Internet, but in book form she suddenly thought it was unacceptable even though the same people might be buying it.

The writer is also mulling over an inaccurate assumption that these writers always win. The victory over the Lexicon was rather hollow because the award barely paid for JKR's air fare from London, and in a relatively short time the book got into print anyway. The Judge ruled that JKR could not keep all other encyclopedias off the market anyway.