J.D. Salinger gets more opposition on Catcher in the Rye suit
Some high-powered organizations -- including major media companies -- have joined in the battle over an unauthorized sequel to J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. When we last left the fray, a federal judge in New York sided with Salinger, and blocked U.S. distribution of 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye. Judge Deborah Batts rejected claims by the Swedish author that the book was a critical examination or parody of character Holden Caulfield. The ruling is a temporary order meant to remain in place until the case can be aired at trial.
But media companies including The New York Times and Tribune, owner of The Baltimore Sun, are worried about the larger issue -- the government stepping in to stop publication, Publishers Weekly reports. As we noted on Read Street in June, judges are extremely reluctant to halt publication of books and newspapers, due to First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression. In a major case on that issue, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected govenment efforts to halt newspaper publication of the "Pentagon Papers," a critical review of U.S. policy in Viet Nam.
As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals prepares for oral arguments on the Salinger case on Sept. 3, media companies have filed a supporting brief that says in part: "An injunction that effects a content-based, government-imposed speech restriction is especially inappropriate where it is entered without the benefit of a full trial. There is no reason why, if a copyright infringement is ultimately found, that monetary damages, rather than a book banning, would not be an adequate remedy.”
While she always preferred The Hardy Boys to Nancy Drew, 
Comments
I find the argument of the newspapers to be ridiculous. What about Salinger's rights? There's no way that monetary damages could EVER repay an author for having his work stolen.
In the Internet age, the whole thing is moot anyway. Those who who want to read junk and violate the rights of a revered and spectacular author in the twilight of his life can simply go to AmazonUK and buy a copy of "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye." Why can't they just do that, then go away -- and leave the rest of us, who respect the rights of authors, alone?
In my view, newspapers should spend their time figuring out how to survive, instead of engaging in this kind of legal grandstanding. It's disgusting and just plain stupid.
Posted by: Gail Farrelly | August 11, 2009 1:02 PM
Catcher in the Rye was a terrible book. Sorry.
Posted by: Jen | August 11, 2009 4:46 PM
Anyone who thinks 'Catcher' was a terrible book suffers from a terrible lack of insight.
Posted by: Cathy | August 13, 2009 11:30 AM
If you can't make a name for yourself I don't see the point in piggybackin' someone like Salinger. You're just gonna make your writing look like crap compared to someone that big.
AND writing anything at all like a sequel with the same characters while Salinger is still alive could infringe on a future work where he could have been planning to use the characters again. It takes away options from the original creator.
Furthermore, back to the original point, piggybackin' someone else's work is just a rude and offensive way to sell books. Do your own work, make your own name, leave other people alone.
Posted by: Andy | August 13, 2009 11:00 PM
It really was a terrible book I feel sorry for whoever had to read it :(
Posted by: Sally | August 16, 2009 4:25 PM
It was pretty bad. I don't even believe you have to like your protagonist to enjoy the story but Holden was a little bastard.
Posted by: Kevin | November 4, 2009 8:40 AM