|
|
Cleolinda Jones (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} cleolinda) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2007-11-03 02:29:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Current mood: | Amazed |
| Entry tags: | entitlement, fandom: harry potter, internet lawyers, this is the wank that never ends |
"How would it benefit us in any way?"
I kind of debated about splitting this off, but... well, the other entry's kind of overflowing with ETAs now, and... you'll see.
Now on Leaky, Questions and Answers with WB and RDR Books. The main thing people should probably see: the bit about the "critical essays," because on the previous wank, people stated multiple times that no contributors, to anyone's knowledge, had been approached about their essays going into a book.
Contributors to the Lexicon may be interested to learn that "[t]he book contains critical analysis from 'Steven Vander Ark and his staff.' When asked what he meant by critical analysis Mr. Harris said, 'You can go to the site and read the articles. I’m not going to itemize them for you.' Questioned further he said 'the book was typeset directly from the site,' and that it was word-for-word taken from the web site."
I don't think this is how it works:
RDR claims not to have given JKR’s people a copy of the book because “we don’t have a copy to give them…because the book hasn’t been published yet.” Asked why they didn’t hand over a manuscript, Mr. Harris said, “how would it benefit us in any way? This is the result of a barrage of letters from their lawyers in the last two months. Late i[n] the game they came forward and wanted to see the manuscript, after they’ve been threatening to sue us and everything. How is it going to help us in any way to show them the manuscript except to provide them with more information. At this stage are they going to say, ‘Oh, we’re sorry?’ and go away? I don’t think so.”
Someone's misrepresenting something, although which side that may be is not necessarily clear at this point:
RH: They received lots of response. We repeatedly told them yeah, give us a call, give Roger a call, and he will talk to you about it.
TLC: That’s not what they put forth in their legal document.
RH: [laughs] I know that’s not what they put forth in their legal document. Well aware of it.
TLC: Then I want to make this clear because it’s serious: You’re saying that they bore false witness in that document.
RH: We’ll answer that in our answer.
And the gist of the answer that they will be answering, apparently, is this: "It’s RDR’s position that the Lexicon did not need permission to do work on the book."
Also, most commenters on the entry are starting to side with JKR and WB, although there are still holdouts:
* Raiveyn you don’t think JKR would’ve objected to Steve doing an encyclopedia???..She is doing it!!!! I don’t know wath happened with her!...She should appreciate it..not to reject!..Bad done Jo!
* i think it’s a bit early to assume steve was going to publish esseys without permission. talk about rumors getting started. to me it sounds like RDR are just screwing over the lexicon for their own agenda.
* Just a question to all of you that say that Steve’s work of compilation doesn’t have anything original in it (Compilation can be copyrighted if the arrangement as a whole constitutes a new work – it is in the law), that he is a thief and a greedy man. If he closed the Lexicon, wouldn’t it make any difference for you, because all that information is in JKR's books anyway? If you think so, fine. If you don’t, then you are being a hypocrite. I’ve seen people praising the Lexicon one day and calling Steve a thief the other day. That certainly isn’t fair.
* Unless there is something seriously back-handed about all this, I am with Steve Vander Ark all the way. I couldn’t believe that I could side against Jo in a legal argument, but I’m afraid I am against her in this one . . .
By the way, perhaps the most important statements from WB's side of things:
WB doesn’t feel this is an issue of first amendment rights, and that there are unequivocally no rights owed to the Lexicon for a timeline deriving from the rights of others.
There is no intention to have this suit apply to other fan endeavors such as web sites, wizard rock, etc.
ETA 1, via
mrs_bombastic: RDR Books has expanded its page on the Lexicon, and... well:Summarizing Ms. Nelson's view, one reporter wrote that Warner's "cease and desist letters constituted an attempt to open a dialogue." How could that be?
This is obviously a contradiction in terms. It reminds of a statement made by General Leslie Groves when he was asked if the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was leading to lingering deaths of tens of thousands of civilian[s].
ETA 2, via
sheep: The Lexicon book on Amazon UK, with a cover very in keeping with the adult HP cover style over there (Exhibit A).ETA 3, via
pyratejenni: One of the essay contributors speaks. And no, she was not asked or notified.ETA 4:
calliope14 is told that her essay isn't in the book: "Now, while I'm glad that means (supposedly) that he's not ripping off the fen like he's ripping off JKR, it means that there is even LESS original material in the book than there would have been if he included them." This directly contradicts what RDR last said.ETA 5:
soleta_nf remembers something interesting: "I saw Steve Vander Ark speak at a Harry Potter conference in Ottawa in 2004. He said then that his real reason for starting the lexicon was that he knew JKR would be publishing an encyclopedia someday, and he hoped that, by having already created one, he would be the person she approached to help her with it. All I can think now is that he found out she was planning to publish the encyclopedia on her own, and he thought, 'Screw that.' And is now trying to cash in on the pay day he's been expecting for years now."Not only that, but
vorpal_blade remembers something even more damning: "By the time Prophecy rolled around, he was telling his audience (at the con) that Jo didn't know her world as well as the fans did and that they owned it now, not her. Oh, and the epilogue sucked, he said." Now with video!This is getting to the point where... I'm just reporting what people are saying happened, y'all.
ETA 6: The reference to Hiroshima has been removed. NOT SO FAST, RDR.
