|
|
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,@ 2007-11-06 17:41:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Entry tags: | entitlement, fandom: harry potter, i see stupid people, internet lawyers, plagiarism, this is the wank that never ends |
"Well, unless you find lawyers sinister"
I really apologize for this--it really is starting to get ridiculous, the number of entries. If people are really, truly sick of Lexicon wank or want to boot it into the Cornfield, let me know.
In case you missed, uh, ETAs 6-8:
RDR spokesman writes to the Terminus 2008 staff.
A PDF file of the actual filed complaint.
elanor_isolda counters several of the allegations. (sententia brings up an interesting point re: Elanor's entry: "Taking the Lexicon completely out of the equation, Warners/Rowling thought that the material was obviously fine when it was published (word for word) by someone else [the plagiarism alleged by Elanor regarding another book on Amazon] otherwise they would have sued them/served them with a C&C order, so why should they sue when Steve uses those exact same words? I find that bit a little weird.")
New: SVA updates the the Lexicon's What's New page. "NOTE: I know that many people (waves to the JournalFen crowd) are seeing conspiracy here with the comments gone, but to be frank, it’s nothing sinister. Well, unless you find lawyers sinister." I'm not going to make the obvious joke on that one.
WatchThatPage tells me that something's different about the RDR Books Lexicon page, and it cites this section: 
Can anyone tell if any of it is really different, in the interest of equal time?
Note: So many fan reactions are following the Snacky Template that I don't intend to link to anymore unless there's something really spectacular. That said, you can always discuss anything you find in the comments.
ETA: Since it's just not HP wank without accusations of plagiarism, the Hannah Abbott entries she mentioned are very interesting compared side-by-side. 
ETA within an ETA: (A spot-check comparison of four random entries.)
ETA 2: From white_serpent: Why the Great Timeline Duplicated Date Error may not be all that airtight a piece of evidence.
ETA 3: Remember what I said about no more fan reaction links? Well... from narcissam: "We are declaring today Steve Vander Ark Day, November 1 - All Saints Day."
Also, a nonnymouse just left me a comment: http://www.stevevanderarkfans.com. Interestingly, it predates this whole saga by a good three months at least.
ETA 4: Another mouse: "The judge in the case says RDR Books has to come before the court on November 19. Also includes some of the info from the Lexicon that they plan to use in court." Barring a settlement (which is where I'm laying my money. Uh. So to speak), that's a while for y'all to wait.
ETA 5: The RDR Books page has changed again: (See new material only here.)
By now the story of the J.K. Rowling/ Warner Bros. Halloween lawsuit aimed at Steve Vander Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon has become news from Shanghai to South Bend. More than 1,000 stories in newspapers, on wire services, television and radio have brought this David and Voldemort battle to the readers of the New York Times, MTV and the International Herald Tribune. Determined to publish this book for the benefit of Harry Potter fans everywhere, RDR Books believes Ms. Rowling who has championed the Lexicon for years will love reading the book just as much as she does the website on which it is based. While waiting for the book to come out here is interesting background on this extraordinary case that has captured the attention of readers everywhere.... Here is a good summary of the legal issues at stake in the case by a respected California digital and print copyright expert. It is reprinted with permission from Mayitpleasethecourt.com."Key sentences from that: "You see, the Harry Potter Lexicon has been published before - on the Internet. [...] There isn't a difference between a copyright on the Internet and a copyright in books." Note: the blogger seems to ignore the issue of profit.
ETA 6: Accept no substitutes! Plus, a new filk. That said, I am determined to stay on this one entry unless/until something earth-shattering happens
ETA 7: From
narcissam: "Yes, I want to be THE source for all this stuff, I admit it." Not really interesting in a legal sense; more of a psychological one: "I have to admit too that part of me was worried because the [Beacham encyclopedia] is, in some sense, competition to my Lexicon website, so to be fair, I WANTED to find errors. Hey, I wanna win." Also: An insight into why the Lexicon might not want to settle, and evidence of a curious change of heart between 2000 and now: The publishers of the Beacham book were sued by Scholastic etc but it failed to stop the book going to press. I don't want to offend anyone or cause problems, especially with Jo. I would love to have her give her blessing to such a project (I have these fond little daydreams of getting email from her one day saying she liked the Lexicon and offering suggestions). But without her permission, I won't publish it in any form except online. She's entitled to that market, not me and not the Beacham author. I'm just filling in until she gets time to do it (or wants to hire me to do it for her! Now THERE'S a thought!!!)Bonus: Annotate the series itself?
Also: Moar filks.
ETA 8: From elanor: WB has now seen the book? Is it possible after all "to settle this case to Ms. Rowling's satisfaction and publish the book" [my emphasis]?
ETA 9: From TLC: Update on JKR/WB vs. RDR Books Case: "The day before last, a court ordered RDR to hand a copy of the manuscript to J.K. Rowling's lawyers, and one was delivered, according to those lawyers. JKR/WB are seeking a preliminary injunction (source here) to the sale of the book, and have not apparently been deterred by viewing the manuscript. RDR has also made claims on their web site that they have "repeatedly offer[ed] to settle this case to Ms. Rowling's satisfaction and publish the book," requests which apparently have not been agreed upon. TLC has asked RDR what the settlement was and has not been met with a response."
ETA 10: Praetorianguard has posted another analysis. I recommend reading the comments as well. Also, an interesting point regarding the book alleged to have plagiarized the Lexicon (see Hannah Abbott screencap above):
Anon 1: I've read about this book, the author has a web blog somewhere and talked about her experience with JK and her lawyers about publishing the A-Z book. She said "it made her blood boil that this billionaire sent a C&D letter to her book which is not gonna make much money anyway". She tried to fight it off with her own lawyers but eventually backed down and allowed JK's representatives to edit it, which included the "Unofficial" in the title as well as a disclaimer.
Anon 2: I think this is the key quote taken from the Leaky Cauldron's interview with WB: "WB claims to spend hundreds of hours vetting dozens of these types of books each year, and only goes to court (as in the case of Tanya Grotter) when the authors are not willing to make the necessary modifications." As long as you work with them, they don't sue you. That's why there are books like the aforementioned one out there.
ETA 11: Another anonycomment: Apparently when RDR (allegedly?) said "Print out the website," WB took them at their word.
