"Hogwarts Castle" J K Rowling Sues

I marvel at the cheek of J K Rowling creator of the unremittingly imitative Harry Potter. J K Rowling is suing an Indian community group over their erection of a "Hogwarts Castle" - in reality a wooden structure bearing only a remote resemblance to the filmed object, as seen in the many Harry Potter films.

Her objection is that the Indian group, FD Block Puja Committee of Salt Lake, India, have breached her copyright over the Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, by building a structure and referring to it as "Hogwarts Castle".

The wooden structure, known as a pandal, is one of over 10,000 pandals constructed in the Kolkata area to mark the festival of the Goddess Durga and her slaying of a demon - thus representing the triumph of good over evil.

What struck me as quite curious was how different their presentation of Hogwarts is to be. Dominating the set will be a statue of the 10-armed goddess attacking a demon as it emerges from a buffalo. That doesn't seem too much like Harry Potter to me. However, there will also be life-sized images of Harry Potter and his companions.

The festival is the biggest in East India and communities there pride themselves on the pandals that they create. The organizers of this one chose the theme, thinking it would draw the crowds in. Santanu Biswas, secretary of the community group, said, "We had no clue we had to seek permission from the author."

Now, I can understand their point of view. They are from India, and such matters are probably not well known. So, the idea of the extent of copyright was not likely to be known to them. Yet, there is something about all of this that bothers me. Anyone reading any book by J K Rowling can only be struck by their derivative nature - she owes so much of her contents and "ideas" to other authors that there is very little, if anything, in the books that she can truly call her own. To exercise copyright so virulently over such a collection of derivations (to which there are internet sites devoted to all over the net), is really rather cheeky. J K Rowling cannot claim to be free of imitation. In fact, she would be hard pressed to claim origination without stretching the truth, rather.

I remember reading a much more erudite tale of a Wizard school when I was a boy - long before J K Rowling became a single mother and cafe haunting writer - The Earthsea Trilogy by Ursula K Le Guin. If you look around, you will see that everything J K Rowling says in her books, has a precedent elsewhere.

So, my feelings on the Indian situation are mixed. Yes, copyright should always be upheld. But no, not if the author in question owes so much to others - the question then becomes: whose copyright should be upheld? J K Rowling's...or the the legion of authors that she owes multiple huge debts to?

Incidentally, Warner Brothers and J K Rowling are suing for 2 million rupees - about $55,000 USD. That is a lot of money to the organizers. If they can't get agreement to go ahead - they will have to dismantle their work.

The unseen factor in all of this is that the Indians are, basically, engaged in a big Harry Potter promotion. Perhaps, in that light, J K Rowling should be paying them, not suing them.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and ten months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and three months, and Tiarnan, twenty months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Odex, Pacific Net and Gamesmart

Once upon a time there was a company called Gamesmart that hung out at Orchard MRT (train station). They were an ambitious company that wanted to make "A LOT OF MONEY". They sold computer games and the like. These were expensive to buy from the suppliers - but then they had a BIG IDEA.

What was the BIG IDEA? To copy the games illegally from the suppliers - and then sell the fake games as if they were real goods. This is called counterfeiting - and it is also copyright infringement. According to net sources (including one at a ChannelNewsAsia forum) - the goods stolen in this way included Sony Playstation 2 titles.

Anyway, for a time, all was well. Gamesmart raked in the money and the Gamesmart boys were as happy as happy could be. But then, came a BAD DAY. The police raided their store and all their world fell apart. Two Gamesmart employees served jail sentences, as a result (ChannelNewsAsia forum, source).

Now, why am I talking to you about Gamesmart? Who are they? Well, the oddest of odd things is that Gamesmart has two key directors in common with Odex Pte Ltd. This is a most ironic circumstance for Odex is now pursuing a case against thousands of Singaporeans for copyright violations. Yet, hang on a minute, is that not hypocritical when the two key directors in both companies are the SAME MEN?

If you doubt this, please go to: http://www.nowhere.per.sg/local/gamesmart.pdf

Here you will find the ACRA records (Singapore government accounting body), for Gamesmart. You will note that Sing Xin Yang and Go Wei Ho Peter are directors of Gamesmart. As noted and shown in my previous posts on Odex they are also the two key players in Odex.

Now, Odex is seeking up to $5,000 from each person who downloaded Japanese anime cartoons such as Gundam Seed and Inuyasha, without payment, on the internet. They are seeking compensation for copyright infringement. There is nothing truly controversial about that: copyright is copyright and infringement is infringement - however, what has now become clear - and which was not clear when I posted on them before, is that the people behind Odex have, historically, been involved with a company that was itself charged with copyright violations and the manufacture of counterfeit goods - and was convicted.

All this leads us to a new understanding of the Odex, Pacific Net/Starhub/Singtel/Singnet situation. Whether or not Go or Sing were themselves instrumental in the Gamesmart violation, they were directors of Gamesmart, which was convicted of such violations. Therefore their stand now, against thousands of others who have infringed copyright on titles in which they have business interests, is truly hypocritical. In a moral sense, it seems doubtful that those who have themselves been involved in the infringement of copyright can take much of a stand on another case, in which their own rights are infringed.

Look at this more deeply. I have shown that there is a proven connection between Odex and AVPAS - the Anti-Video Piracy Association of Singapore - in a previous post. How would those Japanese Anime Producers feel if they learnt that Odex, who they have clearly entrusted with the AVPAS work (since they are the administrative contact for AVPAS) - and were appointed by them to pursue this copyright case in Singapore - had, themselves, a history of copyright theft/violation through the past business history of their trusted appointees? (That is those appointees were directors of a company that was convicted of counterfeiting).

This is a very worrying development, not just for this case - but for the whole issue of copyright protection here in Singapore. From all these connections of the Odex directors to Gamesmart and AVPAS, it is clear that the guardians of copyright for anime here, in Singapore, AVPAS, have a link to the Odex directors, who themselves have a link to a company convicted of counterfeiting/copyright violations. Thus the old latin question arises: "Who guards the guards themselves?"

However, IP (intellectual property) must be strongly protected if there is to be any IP to protect. So, this situation does not detract from the need to protect from IP. It also does not make illegal downloading of anime or anything else legally right, either. Yet, it does point out the need to fully understand the situation. Who is it who complains of copyright theft? Have they ever done so themselves? If so, is it not hypocritical to then cry "thief" when another steals from them?

There is a moral solution here. Everyone who stole from Odex could pay a fine. Yes. But then Odex should pay Sony Playstation the same quantum for EVERY TITLE COPY THEY FORGED. By this, I mean that if there are 3,000 downloaders who have to pay 5,000 dollars each...then, unfortunate though it is for those individuals, the law might require them to pay. Yet, given the history of the situation, it would seem moral if the Odex directors also paid Sony the same sum for every copy made. If they made 10,000 copies then they should pay 5,000 dollars to Sony for every instance of violation. That would be both just - and funny.

However, it won't happen, because though they share the same key directors, Odex and Gamesmart are separate entities in law and cannot be pursued for the actions of each other. Yet, as a thought experiment, it has a certain satisfactory moral bite to it.

Let us see how the courts untangle this mess - for truly it is vastly more complex and subtle than at first, it seemed. Perhaps there are even more secrets lurking out there to be discovered.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, and Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Odex, Pacific Net, Singapore: a quote

I have received a number of comments some of which are published in the post below, regarding the Odex, Pacific Net case.

I have only published a few of the comments because many of them appear to be from people angry at the case - and, you can just guess what the tone of them is like.

It would help those commenters to note the words of a Pacific Net spokesman, published yesterday in the Straits Times, concerning the case:

"Pacific Net respects the rights of intellectual property owners and at the same time, also believes in protecting the privacy of all our subscribers."

This is an indication, contrary to what some commenters thought, that part of Pacific Net's argument would have been the protection of privacy. The full details of the argument are, however, protected by the Court, here, in Singapore.

Beyond privacy issues, however, Judge Lau was also concerned that Odex should not be the one to file the suit. He would have preferred a direct suit from the Japanese anime studio itself. This is a bit strange, however, since Odex own the rights to these Japanese anime cartoons, here - and the Japanese studio gave Odex permission to pursue the case - on their behalf. It seems, to me, like a case of a Judge finding a way to ensure that his own viewpoint prevails, by discovering a technicality he can use to support his view. The fact is, copyright was infringed on numerous occasions. The fact is Odex own the local rights. The fact is Odex are pursuing the case on behalf of the Japanese anime studio. It would seem, therefore, a straightforward matter, for me, anyway, to accept their proxy action - and find in favour of the holder of the local rights. Yet, the law is a strange realm - and often does strange things. Perhaps this is one of them.

It will be interesting to see how this copyright case is eventually resolved. Will Odex actually sue downloaders? Will the downloaders pay? Will this action reduce copyright violations here, in Singapore? I will report if anything interesting happens, ultimately.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, and his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, and Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, Chemistry, Science, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Does Singapore value copyright?

Intellectual property and its particular example, copyright, have made news recently, in Singapore. At stake, is the whole idea of ownership of a created work - and the rewards that go with having created it.

As you may know, copyright sometimes gets a rough time, in parts of Asia. China is famous for its businessmen who ignore copyright and intellectual property laws and just copy, or take, intellectual property without authorization or payment. Yet, there is another kind of copyright violation that its perpetrators may not even consider to be in the same arena: the illegal internet download.

Downloading material off the internet is so prevalent and so common the world over, that most young people give it no thought at all: indeed, the typical youngster seems to think it is their right to download whatever they please, whenever they please. This attitude, however, either ignores the notion of intellectual property and copyright - or is founded on an unawareness of it.

Recently, an anime (Japanese cartoon) distributor in Singapore, called Odex, has decided to stand up for its intellectual property rights and sue violators. In the past two years, they have suffered from a decline in sales of 60 to 70 %. They attribute this to a simultaneous rise in illegal downloads of their anime films, off the internet. Quite simply, they contend, young people are no longer buying their cartoons - they are stealing them off the internet. This is destroying their business model. Odex distribute such popular Japanese anime cartoons as Gundam Seed and Inuyasha, usually via VCD/DVD in retail outlets.

To be able to sue the illegal downloaders, Odex first had to find out who they were. To do this, they took the local internet service providers Singtel (government telco), Starhub and Pacific Net, to court. The first two judgements came in against the ISPs, forcing them to reveal the names of about a 1,000 downloaders each: Singtel has done so, Starhub is still mulling over an appeal. The interesting one is Pacific Net - or PacNet. The judge in that case - who was different from the other two - came down in Pacific Net's favour citing the importance of internet privacy, and blocking Odex's petition to secure the names of 1,000 illegal internet anime downloaders.

The fact that a Singapore court came down against the intellectual property owner, in a copyright violation case, is itself very interesting (and more of that later) - but what really intrigues and appals me, in equal measures is the reaction to Odex's case, in the online forums, in word of mouth - and in other forms of feedback to Odex, itself. There has been outrage all over the internet, that Odex would actually seek to protect its copyright - violators and sympathizers have been pouring vitriol against Odex in forum, after forum. There have even, reports in the Straits Times state, been DEATH THREATS against Odex.

Just reflect on that for a moment. The general feeling among young internet downloaders is that Odex, which owns the sole rights to distribute these Japanese anime cartoons in this part of the world, should not be allowed to protect its intellectual property. Indeed, the mass of internet users are angry that Odex should be doing so - to the point of issuing death threats against them. I find that really, really disturbing - and you should, too.

What exactly is Odex protecting? The right for the creator of a work to be compensated when someone else enjoys the use of it. I don't think that should be a controversial issue. If there were no rewards for creating works, in any media, exactly how many such works would be available for public distribution? Almost none at all. Without a fair financial return on the time, money and effort put into creating an artistic or other work (and all three facets are involved in most creations), then there would be no significant creative activity that wasn't entirely private. There would be no worldwide market for films, books, music, art, and the like. The entertainment world, as we know it, just would not exist. Is that a better world than the one we have? Few would think so - yet that is the world the outraged internet voices are arguing for. They are crying out for a world in which creators, producers and owners of creative works are NOT rewarded for doing so. In such a world, there would be no Japanese anime cartoons to be bought in the shops or even downloaded for "free" on the internet - for no-one would spend millions of dollars making them, when they could never recoup the money invested. The protesters against Odex are baying for a world without art, a world without culture, a world of utter boredom.

No. People should not be demanding a relaxation of copyright laws. People should not be demanding that the internet should be a free for all. People should, instead be demanding a strengthening of copyright laws. People should be demanding huge penalties for all who breach them. Why do I say this? Well, in a world in which copyright is strong and well-protected, creators feel secure in releasing their works to the public. They are rewarded well for it - and more works will follow. A world of strong copyright protection is a world with a burgeoning, vital culture - to the benefit of all, except the freeloaders who would wish to steal a work, rather than pay a reasonable sum for it.

Odex is seeking $5,000 Singapore dollars from each and every illegal downloader. They are not seeking a penalty for each individual copyright violation, as I understand it (though, really, they should). That is about $3,285 US dollars a head.

As a writer, myself, and as someone who understands the work that every creative work embodies (sometimes a lifetime's work in a single opus), I really hope Odex wins all its cases against illegal downloaders. Any case against copyright theft can only serve to strengthen copyright and protect the rights of all who create, in any way, and in any medium, anywhere.

What really worries me about this case, though, is that the Singaporean judge in the Pacific Net case did not understand this. Either he did not understand this - or did not care about it. He placed "internet privacy" above "copyright protection". That is equivalent, in the physical world, to putting the rights of shoplifters not to be identified (so that, hey, they can shoplift again, anonymously, no shop knowing who they are), above the rights of shopowners not to be stolen from. It doesn't make sense. Privacy is an important issue - but you cannot and should not use a right to privacy to hide a criminal, of any breed. A thief is a thief, whether they steal a car or a film - it is still theft. A court has no place coming down on the side of the thief, against the owner of the property that was stolen. That really doesn't make any sense.

Generally speaking, lawyers don't create anything. Therefore, perhaps, this particular lawyer does not understand the issues around creating a work - and being compensated for the use of that creative work. It is not an issue that he would feel strongly about because it is not an issue ever likely to concern him. Well, it should. The whole of human society is built on the works of intellectual property holders - be it copyrights or patents. We all, together, have a collective responsibility to ensure that intellectual property is protected and its owners properly compensated. If we do not do this, there won't be any intellectual property to protect - and then we will all suffer. In a sense, therefore, those who steal intellectual property, strike against us all - for they are striking against those on whom all the richness of society is built. We shouldn't stand for it. But first we must understand the issue. Once we understand that issue - and I hope to have done something to help, there - there should be no excuse for not protecting intellectual property with the same vigour that we protect physical property. If this issue doesn't mean much to you, put the words "my house" or "my car" in the place of Japanese anime cartoons - and see just how happy you feel about someone stealing it.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, genetics, left-handedness, College, University, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The importance of attribution

I can't help but notice that many people are in the habit of quoting another's thoughts, without attribution. Though most of these people seem to be unaware of it, such a practice is a form of theft, for it deprives the originator of the thought, idea, proposal etc. of the credit for having conceived it.

Part of the education of us all, is coming to understand what others have thought before us, and perhaps understanding why they thought in such a way. It is always enlightening to consider the wisdom of those who were known for their genius.

A few days ago, I was listening to the radio in Singapore, when I heard something that made me most uncomfortable. It appeared to be a slogan for the radio channel that I was listening to. It went like this:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge, so use your imagination..." Listeners were then urged to listen to Lush Radio.

The cheek of what they had done stilled me. Many of you will probably know where their slogan came from: it was a thought of Albert Einstein's that they had corrupted to sell their radio channel to the public. There is a deep irony in claiming that listening to their channel was an act of the imagination - when they had, in fact, shown no imagination themselves, in plagiarizing the famous words of a great man, to promote themselves.

What is so wrong with this? Well, many listeners will not know whence those words came. They will not make the connection to Einstein. This deprives them of a full understanding of what the words mean - for they cannot know the perspective of the first mind to have conceived them. Only through knowing that Einstein coined them, can we have a chance to understand both their import and their meaning. Not that alone, but knowledge of what great minds have thought, is part of human culture - to have the words of such minds, turned into commercial slogans for commercial end, cheapens that culture and makes of it something vacuous. Truly, what they did was morally - and legally wrong. For it is a breach of the moral rights of an author not to attribute a quote - and a breach of copyright to do so. Yet, this was done by an institution in a position of influence and respect: a radio station.

Einstein's remark was made originally in Berlin, in 1929 to the journalist and poet, George Sylvester Viereck who had somehow coaxed an interview from the most reluctant world-famous physicist.

"How," George began, "do you account for your discoveries? Through intuition or inspiration?"

"Both," replied Albert Einstein. "I sometimes feel I am right, but do not know it. When two expeditions of scientists went to test my theory, I was convinced they would confirm my theory. I wasn't surprised when the results confirmed my intuition, but I would have been surprised had I been wrong. I'm enough of an artist to draw freely on imagination, which I think is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

Few Singaporean listeners know whence that quote comes - and that is what allows the radio station to imitate, as it did. That is a pity, for Einstein's words were spoken on a matter of some importance: what leads a genius like him to think and create as he had?

It is saddening to see a radio station trivialize such a man's words. I hope they change their slogan - and perhaps announce who they were quoting.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults, in general. Thanks.)

On being an academic reference

It has come to my attention, that my blog is now official reading at one school. I find this quite touching - enough to bring a smile, anyway.

One school has listed my blog as part of the term's reading list, relating to intelligence and giftedness, for a course, of some sort. I am in good company on this list, which even includes Wikipedia.

It is surprising how different people react to what is essentially an exercise in communicating my understanding of giftedness, in particular of prodigy. That a school should make my site required reading is not only positive feedback for all my efforts - it is something much more important than that: it is an opportunity to reach out to all the children at that school and broaden their perspective on education, its ways, its effects and, most importantly, its opportunities. I espouse a much wider view of giftedness than many do - and perhaps that might be encouraging to some children whose gifts are not necessarily rewarded by a conventional schooling.

To me a gifted child is any child who is better than is usual - at anything. By "anything", I mean anything. There are so many ways in which a human being can be outstanding - and I believe that all of them have their place, in a better human society. Giftedness should never be viewed as something narrow, something purely academic - for that only captures a minority of those who are exceptional. Giftedness, in its truest sense, is the potential to exceed the norm, in any positive way, in any positive endeavour - or attribute. (Sometimes giftedness doesn't have to be exerted, it just is.) Perhaps I will write more of this idea another time...but for now, I would like to welcome the readers from that school - and any other that chooses to reference my blog. Thanks...don't forget to credit any quotes, though, to their writer. (That is the way things are done.)

(IF you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, or Tiarnan, sixteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

The silence of academia: a curious observation

Quite a number of the readers of this blog have IP addresses at Universities and other academic or research institutions. I find this interesting. It is more interesting still when you know that the longest readers of the blog - that is, those who spend most time on it on any one occasion, tend to come from .edu addresses.

Today, for instance, a visitor from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a research and educational institution famed for its work on DNA, spent one hour, nine minutes and one second on my site. It may be of relevance that they have a neurobiology department. In particular, Josh Dubnau, Zach Mainen, Robert Malinow and Yi Zhong who work in learning and memory and Hollis Cline and Karel Svoboda who work on plasticity might have found it of interest. Or indeed Josh Huang whose work is on the development of the neocortex.

That is not what is surprising however. What is really surprising is that these champion internet blog readers don't leave any comments. I have yet to note a single comment from a .edu reader. I find that odd. It is as if, in academia, the flow of information is only to be one way: from me, to them. They read deeply - indeed they are the deepest readers of my blog - but never engage in dialogue.

The ones who comment and engage in dialogue tend to be those with real-life experience of gifted children: the parents of such kids. With parents of gifted kids I have a dialogue - but with academia, I have a monologue.

Please note that if you are an academic and you find anything of worth, interest, or relevance on this site, please make a citation/reference to my site and my authorship. Thanks.

(If you would like to learn about Ainan Celeste Cawley, six, a scientific child prodigy, and his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of child genius, adult genius, prodigy, savant and gifted children in general. Thanks.)