Dianna Wynne Jones did wizarding school long before Rowling. She even had elements that made it into Potter, like portraits on the wall where the subjects moved.
As I (a layman) understand it, you can copyright an implantation of an idea, but not the idea it self. i.e.: Edison didn't invent the electric lightbulb. He patented a type of lightbulb.
You're confusing copyrights and patents. You can't get a copyright on an idea, just on your implementation of it, as you said. However, with patents you can get protection that is broad enough to cover an idea, and not just a specific implementation of it. This can be seen particularly well when looking at broad method patents, for example.
Starwars Star Wars vs Battle Star Galactica, over the idea of the space western, it didn't hold up in court.
And yet they're two entirely separate forms of intellectual property protection, with entirely different scope, terms, and different bodies of law. They're only put together in the Constitution because that part of the Constitution provides for Congress' power to establish these IP systems, not because they're the same thing.
Article I Section 8. Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Not amended. It's not in code, there is no treasure map on the back. You figure it out.
That's what I just said in my prior post above-- both areas of IP are in the same section of the Constitution for purposes of the grant of power to Congress. It appears your grasp of the written word is only slightly less tenuous than your understanding of legal issues.
Oh, it says what it says. No, that does not mean it can be further refined. The courts make shit up as they go along. There was no intent to ever have a federal government such as we have. See 10th amendment.
Um.... You're quoting a clause of the constitution that says that Congress can make laws regarding copyrights and patents, and claiming that that clause means that Congress cannot make laws regarding copyrights and patents. Arr?
Magic schools, long forgotten evils, and "the chosen one" are archetypal concepts. I've seen them in dozens of animes, shows, movies, and books. With a little Googling you'll discover that the idea of a magic school can be traced back to the legend of the Scholomance in Transylvania; maybe it goes back farther in history than this, I'm not sure. In any case, I fail to see how simply using these concepts, all other factors aside, would be grounds for plagiarism. Otherwise why stop there? Wouldn't the hero's journey, the master and apprentice relationship, and so on also be problematic? That would be ridiculous in my opinion. Plagiarism occurs at a higher level of resolution than this. It would be nothing short of stupid if marble was off-limits after the first sculptor made a bust out of it.
YOU EDITED AND RUINED EVERYTHING!! Magic academies, long forgotten evils, and 'the chosen boy' are archetypal in dozens of animes, shows, movies, and books. How simply with some time on Alta Vista, and using these words, all other factors aside; and some schloss about Dracula in Transylvania could this be grounds for plagiarism? Why stop here? Would not the hero's journey, the master and apprentice relationship, and so on also be a problem? Ridiculous in my opinions. Plagiarism occurs at exactly this resolution. It would be nothing short of stupid if marbles were off-limits after the first sculptor made a game out of them.
New idea for a thread: plagiarize the post above you. THOU REVISED PLUS DERELICTED IT ALL. I used to be way better at this in high-school.
Guys, guys, it was never intended that there should be a federal government other than to coordinate the states. There virtually was no federal government until Lincoln's bloody war. The laws changed but the constitution didn't. The lawyer can't agree with me because he wants to preserve his job. Tenth amendment says congress (other than the original parameters) can't pass such a law without amending the constitution. Looking for conflicts? Example: How many federal courts are established under the constitution? Just one. Other courts may be established "From time to time" (if I remember the phrase correctly) indicating to me that they would be abolished when they were no longer needed. Please stop assuming that you know what the federal constitution says and read the flipping thing. Try to put your personal biases aside and just read it. I now step down from the soap box. The last word is yours.
I'm supersizing... When Mr and Mrs Dursley woke up on the dull, grey Tuesday our story starts, there was nothing about the cloudy sky outside to suggest that strange and mysterious things would soon be happening all over the country. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone ... Mr Presley threw back the blanket this rainy Wednesday morning. 'Wake up, little wife,' he said. Yet even as he withdrew his elbow; Mr Presley [who] had absolutely no perception of how the nation would erupt in an incredible adventure moments after he had cleaned his brown teeth. dr2
When a hairy potter named Elvis rose before noon on the day between Tuesday and Thursday he looked at what might as well be a stranger beside him, and suddenly remembering why he drank each night for the past uncounted years, escaped from the sheets elbow first with zero awareness that the country would be in an uproar known as The Jailcell Jam.
You're saying this like it applies to everyone here. You may be surprised to find out that it doesn't because The U.S.A. isn't the entire world. Plagiarism is, however, a problem that plagues the entire world and is therefore a problem wholly independent of The Constitution. So perhaps it's best if we put our biases aside and realize that thumping our chests about The Constitution and Congress and whatever courts they allow or establish probably isn't going to help the OP in a practical sense.