Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Cleolinda Jones ([info]cleolinda) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2007-11-20 17:52:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:entitlement, fandom: harry potter, internet lawyers, this is the wank that never ends

Another wad of tinfoil for your chewing pleasure
RDR Books has updated. New passage:

Does the Lexicon comply with the Fair Use doctrine promoted by the Copyright Act?

Based on the opinions of the several publishing attorneys Mr. Rapoport and Mr. Vander Ark consulted before undertaking any plans or arrangements to create a print media version of The Harry Potter Lexicon, the controlling copyright and trademark legal precedent is quite clear. There is no doubt that they are within their rights in publishing this work just like 46 other publishers who have published similar works of Potter criticism and analysis not being sued by Warner Bros. or Ms. Rowling. We ask that the public - and particularly fans of J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter novels - withhold judgment until all the facts are in evidence and a court judge has ruled on the legal issues.


Also, they added a number of links. New for us: Yatterings and "A commentary by University of Arizona Emeritus Professor Ken Goodman" (ETA: published twice by RDR Books). Hosted on the site: An open letter from librarian and independent scholar Brenda M. Williams.

And from legionseagle: The Lexicon rights offering page is still up at Publishers Marketplace. You know, despite the injunction.

ETA: And oh, man, is it a good one.
When will the Lexicon be published?

The 412-page Harry Potter Lexicon has been voluntarily delayed by RDR Books pending a New York federal court hearing February 6 on a request for an injunction by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. Judge Robert Patterson will rule on the plaintiffs request for an injunction that could last for three years while a trial and potential appeal go forward. If the injunction request is denied, RDR Books will then be able to publish the book without prior restraint. The entire book is drawn verbatim from the material that presently appears on Steve Vander Ark's website, http://www.hp-lexicon.org, which he has operated with the full awareness of J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. continuously since the year 2000. Knowing that the Harry Potter novels have had a profound effect in encouraging literacy among young people around the world, we believe that publishing the website content in printed form will make its information available to underprivileged children and those in impoverished nations, who may have no access to computers or to the World Wide Web.

At the same time these statements are being made the attorneys for Warner Bros. and Ms. Rowling are working overtime to make sure that this book is blocked from publication. Not content to try their case in court they are trying to preempt public opinion with a vast international publicity campaign designed to make it appear that censorship of a critical reference work is in the public interest. This publicity campaign was launched before the plaintiffs knew they had been sued. This was designed to make sure that most reporters would not have the time to fully research the facts or get a response from RDR Books or the author. The complaint ignores the doctrine of 'fair use', and the first amendment. It also squanders vast sums of money on pointless legal and public relations campaigns.

I would like to note here that, as has been discussed in the comments of the umpteen trillion entries previously posted on this subject, most news articles and blog reports are writing about the suit in very cursory, Big Corporation Goes After Tiny, Helpless Fan terms. So, clearly, they're not part of the Vast International Smear Campaign. I must therefore conclude that the campaign is centered on, if not completely comprised of... Fandom Wank. Dear WB: Please address all Vast Sums of Money to Cleolinda Jones, P.O. Box...

Attempts to settle this case in a way that would benefit the reading public and the Lexicon authors who have donated thousands of hours of their own time on a volunteer basis for seven years to help readers benefit from the Potter books. In fact, the authors of the Lexicon have donated thousands of hours of their own time on a volunteer basis for seven years to help readers benefit from reading the Potter books.
Note the plural, is all I'm saying.

ETA 2: More. Seriously.
What Is Your Reaction to the Warner Brothers/J.K. Rowling Complaint?

Virtually all of the information available to the public comes from the complaint prepared by the plaintiffs' lawyers and is therefore biased by its very nature. Legal pleadings are not evidence and no proof has been offered of any allegation set forth in the complaint. The complaint is rife with factual fabrications and misstatements of law. The plaintiff's statements are clearly designed to confuse readers about the legal elements of copyright and trademark infringement.


ETA 3: From [info]fortheloveof22: 2 battling 'Harry Potter' author to speak in Grand Rapids: "The forum, set for 7-9 p.m. at GVSU's Grand Rapids campus, 401 W. Fulton, is described by GVSU as an opportunity to discuss 'the David and Goliath legal battle that this case entails.' "



Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]metropolis22786
2007-11-20 11:57 pm UTC (link)
And from legionseagle: The Lexicon rights offering page is still up at Publishers Marketplace. You know, despite the injunction

Man, they are going to get absolutely HAMMERED in court for that.

*gleeful*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]auralan, 2007-11-21 03:36 am UTC

[info]camilla
2007-11-21 12:00 am UTC (link)
We ask that the public - and particularly fans of J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter novels - withhold judgment

NO WAI! Where would be the fun in that?

(Reply to this)


[info]iris
2007-11-21 12:05 am UTC (link)
"we believe that publishing the website content in printed form will make its information available to underprivileged children and those in impoverished nations, who may have no access to computers or to the World Wide Web."

So in other words, they want to publish it because children starving in Africa have the right to enjoy Harry Potter as much as anyone else?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]airborne_rodent, 2007-11-21 12:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2007-11-21 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2007-11-21 09:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]coffee_mug, 2007-11-21 11:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]puipui, 2007-11-21 08:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]honorh, 2007-11-22 01:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]coffee_mug, 2007-11-21 11:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]castellated, 2007-11-21 02:10 pm UTC

[info]soupspooks
2007-11-21 12:05 am UTC (link)
Oh, thank god, HP Lexicon wank again

Hm, that's a lot of legalese.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2007-11-21 12:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]setsunastar, 2007-11-21 06:08 pm UTC

[info]lilychan
2007-11-21 12:10 am UTC (link)
    We ask that the public - and particularly fans of J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter novels - withhold judgment until all the facts are in evidence and a court judge has ruled on the legal issues.


I think it's a bit late to say that, don't you think? Oh RDR! You're so silly!

Reposted due to lack of emphasis on my part.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2007-11-21 09:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2007-11-21 04:05 pm UTC

[info]pelirroja_ljc
2007-11-21 12:12 am UTC (link)
Based on the opinions of the several publishing attorneys Mr. Rapoport and Mr. Vander Ark consulted before undertaking any plans or arrangements to create a print media version of The Harry Potter Lexicon, the controlling copyright and trademark legal precedent is quite clear.

Were these real attorneys that they actually showed the completed material to, or do they just play attorneys on T.V.?

Not for nothing, but where have these "experts" been? They're awfully quiet. Did they vanish, or do they just not play well with Cousin Vinnie?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]priestesspadfoo, 2007-11-21 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]spacelogic, 2007-11-21 12:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]priestesspadfoo, 2007-11-21 10:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]spacelogic, 2007-11-22 12:23 am UTC

[info]kalika_maxwell
2007-11-21 12:13 am UTC (link)
Do they know what an injunction mean? Do they know anything at all?

The cluegun wouldn't be enough for this job. Maybe if we upgrade to the cluerocketlauncher? Cluegundam?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]iris, 2007-11-21 12:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2007-11-21 08:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2007-11-21 12:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2007-11-21 12:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]derryderrydown, 2007-11-21 01:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2007-11-21 05:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]drakyndra, 2007-11-21 08:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2007-11-21 09:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tofuknight, 2007-11-21 05:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]priestesspadfoo, 2007-11-21 10:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2007-11-21 02:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sockpuppet_rat, 2007-11-21 02:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dragonfangirl, 2007-11-21 09:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]coreopsis, 2007-11-21 12:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vergilsparda, 2007-11-21 03:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]freezer, 2007-11-21 06:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vergilsparda, 2007-11-21 06:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]palabradot, 2007-11-21 11:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2007-11-21 09:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sunhawk, 2007-11-21 04:18 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]panthea, 2007-11-23 12:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]illian, 2007-11-21 07:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]antimatterspork, 2007-11-26 01:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ballseyboo, 2007-11-21 09:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]randomsome1, 2007-11-27 03:00 am UTC

[info]peachespig
2007-11-21 12:14 am UTC (link)
Translation:

"Mr. Rapoport is tied up in the corner and is no longer allowed to touch a keyboard. Please, please stop laughing at us."

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]tofuknight, 2007-11-21 05:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bubosquared, 2007-11-22 06:54 pm UTC

[info]dhaunea
2007-11-21 12:16 am UTC (link)
So... starving children in Africa, all of whom are doubtlessly Harry Potter fans and in desperate need of checking the facts between the books and the movies (which they doubtlessly watch endlessly on their iPods and/or HD DVD players) need to be able to pay how much for a book on the topic?

Because, you know, that much money is easily available to people who can't afford the internet. Their parents won't mind not eating for a few months so they can get their child a book that is doubtlessly available at their local Barnes and Noble: Kalahari Branch.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bubosquared, 2007-11-21 12:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dhaunea, 2007-11-21 12:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bubosquared, 2007-11-21 11:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dhaunea, 2007-11-21 01:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bubosquared, 2007-11-21 01:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dhaunea, 2007-11-21 01:52 pm UTC
... - [info]bubosquared, 2007-11-21 01:54 pm UTC

[info]evilsqueakers
2007-11-21 12:25 am UTC (link)
As far as I am aware neither JKR herself nor Warner Brothers have expressed any intention of bringing out a comparable volume, and if they did it would surely be very different from Steve Van Der Ark's highly individual approach.

That's right, Ms. Cook. She's never stated that she planned on creating an encyclopedia on her own (oh, wait...), so that means anyone should be able to profit off her property. Just remember writers: you must state at the beginning than encyclopedia is forthcoming before death, or you to can lose the option of your using your own work for your own monetary gain.


Reposted because I need to stop getting distracted when attempting to be witty...and failing miserably.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]priestesspadfoo, 2007-11-21 10:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2007-11-21 11:02 pm UTC
Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there.
[info]dhaunea
2007-11-21 12:28 am UTC (link)
Also note: Any book with a price tag like that is not aimed at indigent children. It is aimed at adult collectors, because (news flash, RDR) the low income and disadvantaged children out there totally do not have that kind of spending money and are, frankly, probably more interested in the original stories than a huge re-arrangement of facts.

Your price says 'I'm a big ol' LIAR'.

"just like 46 other publishers who have published similar works of Potter criticism and analysis"

... what? Encyclopedia =/= criticism and analysis - unless you've tacked on an extra chapter entitled 'Why JKR sucks' which isn't proper criticism and analysis anyway.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]souris, 2007-11-21 01:13 am UTC
Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]notjo, 2007-11-21 12:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fgeist, 2007-11-21 02:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dhaunea, 2007-11-21 02:23 am UTC
Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]julian_black, 2007-11-21 08:23 pm UTC
Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]janegray, 2007-11-21 08:40 pm UTC
Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]julian_black, 2007-11-21 09:59 pm UTC
Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]julian_black, 2007-11-21 10:01 pm UTC
Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]janegray, 2007-11-22 11:01 am UTC
Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2007-11-21 09:31 pm UTC
Re: Because it took two comments to get the indignation out there. - [info]julian_black, 2007-11-21 10:03 pm UTC
so kleer
[info]fortheloveof22
2007-11-21 12:33 am UTC (link)
Yes, the controlling copyright is clear!!! VERY CLEAR! And yet they went ahead ANYWAY.

Yes, I'm sure over there in bumshucked Michigan they had crack lawyers on the case before going to publish.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: so kleer - [info]mmanurere, 2007-11-21 02:42 am UTC
Re: so kleer - [info]caffeine_fairy, 2007-11-21 12:11 pm UTC
Independent Like Ann Coulter
[info]fortheloveof22
2007-11-21 12:35 am UTC (link)
Brenda Cook, Independent Scholar?

When you write something ON THE DEFENDANT'S WEBSITE, in support of the defendant, you are NOT INDEPENDENT.

Shmucks! Shmucks everywhere! They had a shmuck convention and invited EVERYONE!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]ladybirdsleeps, 2007-11-21 12:42 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]fortheloveof22, 2007-11-21 12:53 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]narcissam, 2007-11-21 12:57 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]shaggydogstail, 2007-11-21 01:08 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]sockpuppet_rat, 2007-11-21 01:25 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]fortheloveof22, 2007-11-21 01:56 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]cleolinda, 2007-11-21 01:04 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]fortheloveof22, 2007-11-21 01:53 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]hickorydickory, 2007-11-21 01:08 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]fortheloveof22, 2007-11-21 01:55 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]doomsday, 2007-11-21 02:28 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]narcissam, 2007-11-21 02:39 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]julian_black, 2007-11-21 08:41 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]vito_excalibur, 2007-11-21 04:30 pm UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]fortheloveof22, 2007-11-22 01:35 am UTC
... - [info]panthea, 2007-11-23 01:10 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]puipui, 2007-11-21 08:48 pm UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]nevadafighter, 2007-11-22 12:17 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]ladybirdsleeps, 2007-11-21 01:19 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]fortheloveof22, 2007-11-21 01:54 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]ladybirdsleeps, 2007-11-21 02:17 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]fortheloveof22, 2007-11-21 02:46 pm UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]white_serpent, 2007-11-21 05:56 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]ealusaid, 2007-11-21 08:42 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]puipui, 2007-11-21 08:49 pm UTC
... - [info]white_serpent, 2007-11-21 08:56 pm UTC
... - [info]puipui, 2007-11-21 08:57 pm UTC
... - [info]white_serpent, 2007-11-21 09:03 pm UTC
... - [info]puipui, 2007-11-21 09:42 pm UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]rowleyorama, 2007-11-21 12:45 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]narcissam, 2007-11-21 01:05 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]tunxeh, 2007-11-21 01:56 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]fortheloveof22, 2007-11-21 01:59 am UTC
Re: Independent Like Ann Coulter - [info]agent_hyatt, 2007-11-21 06:08 pm UTC

[info]mistal
2007-11-21 12:53 am UTC (link)
A number of best selling authors have had "Companion Volumes" published to comment and elucidate their works. I know of at least three: Ellis Peters; Dorothy Dunnett; and Dorothy L. Sayers. However, in the first two instances the companion volumes were created with the active co-operation of the author in question and the third was compiled after the author's death by the Society dedicated to her fame. All have been popular with enthusiastic readers.

First: JKR said no. Second: she's still alive.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]miss_eponine, 2007-11-21 01:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]narcissam, 2007-11-21 01:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kosaginolegion, 2007-11-21 03:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]narcissam, 2007-11-21 03:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kosaginolegion, 2007-11-21 04:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]wonapalei, 2007-11-21 04:31 am UTC
... - [info]frequentmouse, 2007-11-21 07:08 am UTC
... - [info]wonapalei, 2007-11-21 01:57 pm UTC
... - [info]kosaginolegion, 2007-11-21 01:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frequentmouse, 2007-11-21 07:08 am UTC