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,
@ 2008-01-16 17:13:00


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

JK Rowling, Defender of Fandom
Apologies to folks sick of Lexicon wank, but--from [info]jedi_dwh: JKR Files Full Request for Injunction of HP Lexicon. "A rule against JKR/WB would harm the fan community by 'necessitating more monitoring and restriction of fan activity by copyright owners afraid of compromising their rights against infringers.' "

It's a huge post and I haven't read it all yet--and apparently it's part one of two. The sentence "The text of the e-mail string between Steve Vander Ark and the Christopher Little Agency requesting employment on the official encyclopedia is included in the document [and reprinted in the post]" jumped out at me, though.

ETA from [info]white_serpent: "Oh, and you can read the whole text of the requested injunction yourself here."

ETA 2: Part two is up. There's interesting stuff in there, but at the very end:

Claims that the book is an academic resource are rebuffed by a piece of evidence showing Roger Rapoport's instruction to a colleague to focus on children's bookstores for sales.

The question of authorship arises here as well: Steve Vander Ark has said the Lexicon was "created, edited, written and maintained primarily by one person, me," and the book has listed only one author; however an e-mail from Roger Rapoport says the book was the result of 20 academic scholars and reference experts' work.

Also, being discussed in the comments here:

>>  [info]lidane: "Remember the fans that contacted Steve about publishing an encyclopedia? Well, they've both filed official statements in the court documents that JKR/WB submitted."

>> [info]auralan: "Thus, rather than being a work of scholarship or research, the Lexicon simply takes Ms. Rowling's intellectual 'furniture,' catalogues it through descriptions that have either been lifted or synthesized from Ms. Rowling, and rearranges it in unoriginal alphabetical order. She's read the Lexicon according to her declaration. I'd say this answers the question on the inclusion of the essays. They're not in there."

ETA 3: More discussions of note:

>> Cassie Edwards-style comparison between Lexicon entries and related JKR text in court documents.

>> WB tech guy's declaration that he did, in fact, try to print the Lexicon website.

ETA 4, from [info]auralan: a Plantiffs' First Amended Complaint ("This is basically the initial filing updated now that they've seen the book. The lawyers seem mighty cranky now that they've done some discovery and have some smoking guns"):
Ms. Rowling and Warner Bros. are concerned about the Infringing Book not only because of the infringing material it contains, as is discussed below, and not only because it will undermine the companion guide that Ms. Rowling herself intends to write, but also because RDR Books has confirmed -- through its refusal to be above-board about its intentions and engage in reasonable discussion about the Infringing Book -- that it cannot be trusted with one of the most beloved children's book series in history.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]lidane
2008-01-17 03:06 am UTC (link)
I love when wank comes around full circle. Remember the fans that contacted Steve about publishing an encyclopedia? Well, they've both filed official statements in the court documents that JKR/WB submitted.

You have to wonder just how closely JKR/WB have been following all the wank and internet postings if they picked up on those two fans and got them to get involved in all this.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]hallidae
2008-01-17 03:22 am UTC (link)
Oh, man. I totally grinned like a loon reading those statements.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wonapalei
2008-01-17 03:39 am UTC (link)
I noticed that too! It made me literally rub my hands and cackle with unholy glee.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]blackflag
2008-01-17 04:01 am UTC (link)
Oh, that is a thing of beauty!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]smashingstars
2008-01-17 04:31 am UTC (link)
It is beautiful. I started imagining the lawyer's interns lurking about F_W, diligently taking notes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ladylance
2008-01-17 04:32 am UTC (link)
I love those fans.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cmdr_zoom
2008-01-17 05:04 am UTC (link)
Me too.

There are few things as damning (in a court of law or of public opinion) as one's own words.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ladylance
2008-01-17 06:08 am UTC (link)
Yeah, kind of hard to claim that he didn't know that it was a violation of copyright now, ain't it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]eilisliana
2008-01-17 05:05 am UTC (link)
If those statements were posted online, they'd have Bitch Plz icons and the following comments would include cat macros and FTWs!

I love them, the smackdown is beautiful.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


sockpuppet_rat
2008-01-17 05:28 am UTC (link)
I don't see why the court can't have cat macros and high-fives.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eilisliana
2008-01-17 06:38 am UTC (link)
Judge: How does the jury rule?
Jury: *holds up cat macro cards* FAILBOAT!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]isobelsomething
2008-01-17 10:25 am UTC (link)
I need to see that on the next episode of Boston Legal.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]auralan
2008-01-17 03:05 pm UTC (link)
I wouldn't be shocked to see the whole case show up on Boston Legal in some thinly hidden way.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]major_fischer
2008-01-17 03:17 pm UTC (link)
Or Law & Order. Or both. Though I totally want to know who gets murdered in the Law & Order version.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]auralan
2008-01-17 04:34 pm UTC (link)
It would be art to have NCIS snark all over this. Perhaps whomever gets killed could have a side job as a reservist.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]usagivindaloo
2008-01-17 07:20 pm UTC (link)
I vote for CSI. That way, if Steve dies, we get to see his brilliant, well deserved fatal beatdown. Again and again and again...


(disclaimer: obviously I don't believe he deserves to die. A good spanking will do. ;D)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]hallidae
2008-01-17 07:41 pm UTC (link)
I vote CSI as well, but mostly for Grissom-snark.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]usagivindaloo, 2008-01-17 07:47 pm UTC
What JF username would Jo use?
[info]rhrsoulmates
2008-01-17 05:44 am UTC (link)
You have to wonder just how closely JKR/WB have been following all the wank and internet postings if they picked up on those two fans

So true! I can only imagine their frustration when anonymous posting is turned off. If they need an account invite, I'll be happy to oblige! ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: What JF username would Jo use?
[info]huehau
2008-01-17 05:57 am UTC (link)
The law firm would pony up the money to buy an account if one was needed. $25 to obtain evidence is nothing to a lawyer. Further, it can be charged to the client.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: What JF username would Jo use?
[info]herongale
2008-01-17 09:16 am UTC (link)
I'm sure the lawyers have little to gain, and much to lose, by publically participating in discussions about a pending case. So it probably is not adviseable for them to have accounts; posting might suggest that they were trying to "push" the discourse JKR's way and thus shape online debate and fan response in order to draw out the kind of testimony they would hope to use in court.

Fan information gained without their input and/or prompting is useful precisely because it is unsolicited.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: What JF username would Jo use?
[info]rhrsoulmates
2008-01-17 03:08 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I agree. My comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously, hence the *wink*.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: What JF username would Jo use?
[info]anon_a_mouse
2008-01-21 10:29 pm UTC (link)
...But you do realise that by making that statement, you are now a lawyer in disguise, right?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: What JF username would Jo use?
[info]herongale
2008-01-21 11:32 pm UTC (link)
Of course.

My degree is from Phoenix Wright University. You may refer to me as "Herongale, Esquire" at all times from now on. :D

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: What JF username would Jo use?
[info]cmdr_zoom
2008-01-19 06:39 am UTC (link)
[info]welfaremumilf?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: What JF username would Jo use?
[info]cancertopia
2008-01-22 06:46 am UTC (link)
Nice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map