pegkerr: (No spoilers)
pegkerr ([personal profile] pegkerr) wrote2007-07-20 09:29 am

Spoilers, Authorial intention and Copyrights

I've been thinking about this stuff all week, since the spoilers started coming out. I'd done a lot of thinking about this in advance, since I got spoiled on the last book, and I was determined not to get spoiled on this one.

There are several issues here which need to be separated: spoilers and copyright violation. I haven't commented much on this directly, because I didn't want to start mudslinging, but behind the scenes, I've experienced the abrupt ending of a friendship with a long-time reader on my friends list over these issues.

I had expected trolls to come out with spoilers, and I'd taken steps to protect myself. I'd already worked through the emotional stuff on this when I got spoiled on the last book. ("Those meanies! How dare they!") Yes, yes, we've all heard about this. I'd expected all this, and it all played out pretty much as I anticipated. On the other hand . . .

Call me naive (I know that [livejournal.com profile] minnehaha B. will), but I really did not anticipate that the entire book would be leaked and people would be reading it--and posting scans of it--onto the internet days before the official release date. Someone on my friends list posted a link to the scan. I protested to her, and she replied, entirely reasonably from her point of view, that she was putting it behind a cut-tag so no one would get spoiled who didn't want to be, and she didn't think that she was doing anything wrong. As long as she protects people from being spoiled, what possible objection could I have to her getting a jump on the book? I could hardly believe that she would say this to me, a holder of copyrights myself.

I couldn't make her understand my objection at all. We went back and forth a bit, neither of us budging, and she finally said that she was sorry that our friendship would end over this, and she would delete the entry because it upset me so much.

Which was a total lie. The entry is still there. She has just locked it so that I can't see it, but I am absolutely sure that others can. (When I tried to reply to her again, I get the message "You are not authorized to view this protected entry" rather than "No such entry exists.")

So here's my objection again: I am a published writer. I hold copyrights which say that I have the right to decide to do what I wish with work that I have created. If someone else other than the author assists in disseminating a copyrighted work in electronic form, a work in a form to which he or she has no legal right, in advance of the publication date, against the clearly expressed wishes of the author and in violation of that author's legal copyright that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I know that I'm naive, perhaps, for wanting to have the experience that Rowling intended: that all over the world, we would be reading the story for the first time and experiencing it as a surprise together. Maybe it's because, since I'm an author, I give extra weight to authorial intention. I thought Rowling's intention was so extremely cool: the world coming together for one magical night, discovering the ending for this marvelous story, and nobody spoiling it for anyone else. That would be a remarkable world event, something never seen before. And we had waited so many years for this night to come! So yeah, I feel a little bitter toward those who are reading the story ahead of when Rowling intended, that they are cheating somehow. [Edited to add: And I do know that it includes some here on my friends list. I'm disappointed in you, but I won't defriend you over it. I'll just point out that you failed to choose what was right over what was easy.)

But I don't feel nearly as bitter toward them as I do toward the people who blew the book open ahead of time. The spoiler trolls are scum, but the others who made it possible to publish spoilers by disseminating the scan are contemptible, too.

They have no right.

[identity profile] kokopoko.livejournal.com 2007-07-20 03:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Someone that got the book early due to deepdiscounts.com shipping it too early took pictures of every page and posted it online. The fault lies with deepdiscounts.com and the person that took the pictures. Also with the NY Times and any other newspaper that reviewed the book and published spoilers before the release date.

I read the scanned book. I'm not stealing because I'm buying the book tonight and rereading it. I stood in line at 9am for my wristband. I didn't pass the links to anyone and have spoiled no one including my daughter. I don't think I've done anything wrong.

[personal profile] moony 2007-07-20 03:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Word.

I've stolen nothing, because Rowling is not only getting money from me for the US release but the UK release as well. I'm constantly pouring money into that woman's pocket. I'm not hosting the scans nor am I passing them around, I'm just a slob with an internet connection.

I didn't ruin my experience in the slightest, and isn't that what matters most? Not the fandom experience as a whole, because if you think about it, people in England get the book first. The east coast of North America gets it before the west coast. Aussies have to wait until tomorrow. We're NOT getting the book all at once, after all.

What matters is that we're getting the book. Period. We're reading it. And in a week, we'll all be talking about it. I hope the people who leaked the book get what's coming to them, but I think it's unfair to point fingers at people who elected to read it early. I laboured over that decision. I did not make it lightly.

And I don't regret it.

[identity profile] dd-b.livejournal.com 2007-07-20 03:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Illegal, clearly yes. Wrong, by my standards, no, I agree. No harm, no foul, and you've listed the two sources of harm you might have caused (financial to Rowling and spoilering people who don't want to be) and denied doing either, so no harm.

I take photos and write software, my wife and many friends (including Peg of course) write and publish fiction; copyright is pretty basic to my income and that of much of my social circle. But I'm still not happy about the use of copyright to make a work *unavailable*, or for that matter the extension of copyright far beyond the author's lifetime (I can see arguments for life+25, maybe; it solves some other problems, and might be the best compromise, but it's still too long). Intellectual property isn't real property, and equating copyright violation to theft is stretching the analogy beyond the elastic limits.