tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post7379559242515968101..comments2023-05-11T13:09:49.760-04:00Comments on Differences & Repetitions: Harry Potter and the SimulacrumTed Striphashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09277064012517739981noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post-36370360247779909432010-03-07T10:54:41.984-05:002010-03-07T10:54:41.984-05:00Ted,
the discussion in your book "The Late A...Ted,<br /><br />the discussion in your book "The Late Age of Print" on Harry Potter and intellectual property rights is fair-minded & critically aware of the real (unspoken) conditions for the creation of 'originals' and 'copies' (simulacra). I didn't get the usual dribble about the tyranny of hacks and translators worldwide (with their "fakes, frauds, and illicit editions") who brazenly violate J.K. Rowlands copyrights and trademarks without a thought for the millions of dollars in lost revenue : it's rather based on an intelligent examination of the "circulation and transfiguration" phenomenon of international bookselling. The Tanya Grotter case is very illuminating.<br /><br />And I was also exceedingly pleased to see a discussion of the real imperialist, globalization and financially exploitive causes ("cultural and economic conditions", as you say) of a vital need for "intellectual property piracy" in places like South and East Asian, and the former Soviet Union Eastern Bloc countries. It's interesting (and perhaps Jameson might agree with you)that copies and originals necessarily exist side by side in a late capitalist economy: a bifurcated vision of a once monolithic (mainly American) vision of world economic domination.<br /><br />In a word, I agree that the copy and original distinction is "grows increasingly indeterminate", forcing on us a critical re-examination of the notions of literary integrity and literary influence and dissemination.Conrad DiDiodatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18312831623791642286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post-47759609741612653372010-02-15T21:07:33.508-05:002010-02-15T21:07:33.508-05:00Clearly I need to get more creative in my response...Clearly I need to get more creative in my responses. Blogging is so passive aggressive -- and I mean that only half-jokingly!Ted Striphashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09277064012517739981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16745091.post-36867278275869643022010-02-15T10:08:53.681-05:002010-02-15T10:08:53.681-05:00They've publicly claimed your copyright?
Then...They've publicly claimed your copyright?<br /><br />Then they've violated the terms of the contract you signed ... and so you should feel free to provide PDFs anytime you want. If they get shirty about that, you can then point out that they're trying to claim ownership of your IP.<br /><br />Either that, or you should hit them with a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that they recall the journal, reprint it with the proper copyright attribution, and then resend it. All at their expense. They'll never do it, of course. But if they'd send you a nastygram for releasing a PDF of a work you own, you should feel no compunction sending them a nastygram for wrongfully trying to claim ownership of said work.Gilhttp://www.comm.umn.edu/~grodman/wordpress/noreply@blogger.com