• First, the fans of Harry Potter have invested a lot of time, money, and passion in the first six volumes in the series. They have read and re-read hundreds of pages over ten years, and they are entitled to discover Harry’s fate on their own.
Nonsense. That so called "entitlement" is an utter fiction, and it directly contradicts Weinstein's second point.
• Second, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has a right to have her intellectual property respected. This right is fundamentally an ethical one, whether or not it is codified by law. That is, even if you aren’t breaking the law by spilling the beans, you still shouldn’t do so.
Rowling has worked diligently over the years to tell the tale the way she wants to tell it, according to the schedule she has set, and it is unfair to disrespect her wishes. The fact that she is one of the most commercially successful authors of all time doesn’t mean that she gives up her right to be treated with respect; our duty to honor the integrity of her creation would apply even if her publisher hadn’t sold a quarter of a billion books (so far).
Again, nonsense. Respecting Rowling's intellectual property has nothing to do with requiring the readers to lock the secret in a box until Rowling calls "all clear." Such an absurd assertion means that no two people can discuss the book because someone somewhere might somehow overhear it in spite of Rowling's wishes. The instant Rowling released the book for sale, she lost any right of secrecy regarding the book's contents.
And if Rowling has indeed worked to tell the tale as she wishes and according to her own schedule (which she has, aside from publishers' demands, etc.), then readers have no "entitlement" whatsoever to discover Harry's fate on their own, despite Weinstein's first assertion. If they had such an entitlement, then they could have called Rowling five years ago and demanded to know what happens to him.
What they have is not an entitlement but a nebulous privilege of ignorance; they are fortunate not to know what happens, but they have no ethical or moral right or entitlement to have that ignorance protected.
• Third, society has a compact with artists. They entertain us, and we support and protect their right to do so. If either party reneges, the deal is off.
Absolute nonsense, and irrelevant in any case. Not to mention a dubious and hamfisted invocation of rights.
Artists have no "right to entertain us," and we don't support their right to do so. Instead, artists have a right to produce their art; if it entertains us, so much the better for us and for them, assuming that they're compensated for it in some way, financial or otherwise.
Appeals to morals and ethics are misguided in this context, no matter how many letters Weinstein has after his name. It is simply more consistent with the aesthetic values of society at large that the secret be preserved in order to maximize the readers' enjoyment. That, I think, is sufficient to justify a call for secrecy, without inflating a simple matter of "can you keep a secret" into a question of fundamental Right And Wrong.
In other words, don't spill the beans, but don't feel the need to bolster your willing secrecy with claims of moral or ethical propriety.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
