heidi | (no subject) (Reply)

In today's Washington Post, Hank Steuver essays about The Matrix, and also brings in mention of some of the other recent blockbuster films which delve into philosophy, metathinking, meme creation and "the superior feeling that nobody gets the [story] but you."

The Harry Potter children -- a rabid generation of meta-consumers, far too smart for their own good -- write long, complaining reviews to one another when each page of their favorite Potter novel has not been translated verbatim to the screen.

Well... (taking exception to his use of the term "children") yes, we do. And, IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that.

Law Professor Peter Yu has an article at Law.com about some of the recent - and older - court disputes surrounding infringment of the Harry Potter series; Yu gives legal analysis of the arguments on both sides in the Tanya Grotter situations, as well as the Chengdu, China-published fakes and the vintage-2000 Claire Field matter, which was resolved over two years ago when WB decided to stop badgering HP webmasters, and start being supportive of the online fandom instead.

Commentators always talk about how society needs authors, and how some authors would take up more remunerative jobs (perhaps as lawyers?) if they were not compensated for their creative efforts. The converse is also true. Authors need fans and customers.