Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53462 readers

1605 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

💰 Please help cover server costs.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

520

Amazon and Tolkein Estate force author to destroy all copies of his work. Only pirated copies will survive. (variety.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

207 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ballsy? He's an outright copyright troll and anyone celebrating him here in the comments should read the article...

He wrote a knockoff book and then tried to claim Tolkien's characters as his own and sue his estate? Does nobody remember the days of BS software patent trolls trying to claim they invented "the app" or "method for clicking on things with the mouse cursor?" Do we remember how mad we were at those shysters?

This guy deserves whatever he gets.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

I read through the article but it doesn't seem to specify the nature of the book. How do we know it's a "knock off"? It might very well be fanfiction. Copyright law aside, fanfiction can be original and is a valid artistic expression.

This is quite a nuanced issue. The author is claiming that the Rings of Power copied his ideas. Even if the author didn't have the legal right to publish this book, he might have put original ideas into his work, and the Tolkien Estate should not automatically own these. The copyright owner "should" (within the current legal framework) be able to make you take down your derivative work, but they don't own it. The article doesn't specify why the original lawsuit was dismissed.