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,
@ 2008-02-06 03:13:00


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

Old Faithful returns
Just one thing, but it's that good. Via [info]auralan: "RDR Books' side wanted, as part of their discovery, to get copies of JKR's notes that she's already prepared for her own encyclopedia! Why? Because JKR says she's writing one and they need this as proof of that."

Application granted in part. Plaintiffs are to provide defendants with copies of the statements contained in the publications [[info]auralan: "They get copies of the magazines/interviews where JKR said she was planning to write the encyclopedia"] listed in plaintiffs response to Interrogatory 3(a) (ii) by February 8, 2008. Defendant has not shown the Court that any further discovery about Ms. Rowling's notes would be helpful to Defendant's position [Judge Robert P. Patterson: "LOL NO"].


Oh, and RDR Books has also started a blog. At least... they're trying to.

ETA: JKR/WB respond:

JKR/WB object to what it sees as RDR’s “pattern of writing the Court whenever it wishes without first making any effort to meet and confer, let alone giving sufficient advance notice of its intended communication with the Court”.... JKR’s “overwhelmingly sensitive” notes would serve “no legitimate purpose other than to harass Ms. Rowling. Rather, the burden of producing these notes far outweighs any benefit to RDR in obtaining them.”


ETA 2, from [info]weyrlady: "SVA has sent a letter to Ansible, a *very* popular fanzine run out of England by Dave Langford. Dave published it here." Short version: The print edition of the Lexicon differs greatly from the website--the material was expanded condensed* and the extensive quoting was minimized and it's legal. Also, JKR hates freedom.

* Wait, condensed? "The entries on the website provide much more detailed and complete information than the entries in the book. We took the information on the site and did a lot of editing, condensing, and in some cases complete rewriting." So... the free resource is... better than the one you have to pay for.

Also: "You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others. We always try to do that in a legal and respectful way."

ETA 3, via [info]lidane: RDR Books Files Response to JKR/WB in Lexicon Suit. TLC: "There are in all declarations from six people and several hundred papers of exhibits, most of which are copies of text from books (including almost the entire Lexicon book)." Points of interest:

1. "It says Rapoport called Vander Ark after reading about him in an article, and Vander Ark expressed interest in publishing a book version of the website. Rapoport said he thought the A-Z index was the best part to publish."

2.  Six examples of other Harry Potter guides are listed, showing that it is "far too late" for JKR to be the "first to publish" an encyclopedia. I believe the first one listed is the one the Lexicon accused (with good reason, as previously discussed in ETA 1) of plagiarizing their site. TLC: "These six [are counted] as the ones that had 'especially striking similarities to the Lexicon in both format and content: At first flush, (a) appears to be out of print or unavailable on Amazon, (b) is about 2/3rds non-encyclopedic work, (c) seems to not be listed on Amazon, (d)’s title is actually 'An Unofficial…' etc. and (f) is a predictions book."

3. I'm just going to give you this one in its entirety: "Prof. Janet Sorensen declares in favor of RDR, and the brief says she says that 'lexicons like this one have an important and distinguished place in the literary world…it organizes a tremendous amount of information into a concise and readable form…[and] provides a significant amount of original analysis and commentary.' It also says the HPL takes information from 'painstaking collection' of Ms. Rowling’s interviews and statements, and Sorensen says it 'helps readers to construct the universe of the Potter books in their minds, to understand its rich connections to the wide world in which we live, and to encourage the impulse to imagine a universe beyond the one depicted in the books.' "

4. SVA’s declaration.

5. A summary of JKR press statements (presumably in lieu of her encyclopedia notes).

6. A new cover mockup.

And SO VERY, VERY much more.

ETA 4: From [info]sylvatica: "The NY Times article today about this case is here: A Tight Grip Can Choke Creativity. They seem to be siding with RDR books, based on fair use, but I don't know if they've visited the Lexicon website much... there's something in there about how it's mostly analysis, commentary, pointing out mistakes and such." Before I was able to update with this, Watch That Page sent an alert to the effect that RDR Books has posted this link on its front page as well.

Also, from [info]ari_o: Wank on the TLC entry, also reported by [info]pyratejenni. "Who does JK Rowling think she is, that she’s better than JRR Tolkien and Gene Roddenberry?"

ETA 5 from [info]lidaneDrama ensues as SVA and Melissa from TLC volley statements back and forth regarding the Lexicon's hosting situation.

ETA 5b: A Lexicon supporter (possible friend of SVA?) shows up to grudgewank Melissa and "subtly" tries to use FW as her flying monkeys. Recipes and snarky tags ensue.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]weyrlady
2008-02-07 08:51 am UTC (link)
So, uh, this may deserve a new post, or at least an ETA.

SVA has sent a letter to Ansible, a *very* popular fanzine run out of England by Dave Langford. Dave published it here. The relevant section reads:

STEVE VAN DER ARK writes about the intended print edition of his _Harry
Potter Lexicon_, which is currently delayed by legal action: see _A245_.
Despite the impression given at one stage by his publishers, this differs
from the on-line Lexicon and its very free use of quotations -- probably
beyond the bounds of fair use -- from J.K. Rowling's fiction. 'The book
is _not_ simply a cut and paste of the Lexicon website. The entries on
the website provide much more detailed and complete information than the
entries in the book. We took the information on the site and did a lot
of editing, condensing, and in some cases complete rewriting. We avoided
direct quotations whenever we could and clearly cited any quotations that
we kept in. In the case of entries from Rowling's own "encyclopedia"-
style books, we intentionally left a lot out and urged readers in the
introduction to the book to go buy her books for the complete
information. A large portion of the Lexicon book text is available online
as part of the filings from Warner Bros last week if you'd like to see
what the final result looks like. [] While I was working on the Lexicon
book, I received assurances from several copyright and intellectual
property experts that the book we were creating was legal. Part of the
problem all along has been the automatic assumption on the part of many
that Rowling has the right to completely control anything written about
the Harry Potter world. That's quite a huge power grab on her part and
from everything I can tell, not legal. You and I are part of a subculture
that lives off the creative work of others. We always try to do that in
a legal and respectful way. However, if Rowling manages to extend her
reach that far into our subculture, she will choke us off very quickly.
And if she doesn't, what's to stop the next person from taking this legal
precedent to even more dangerous places?' [21 Jan] [] _Statistics:_ when
I checked, the on-line _Lexicon_'s 1500 words on Albus Dumbledore had
about 300 words of direct quotation from Rowling (which seemed risky) and
linked to a page with some 3000 words of quotes (which seemed suicidal).
The same entry's book version, as seen in PDF proof, has less than 70
words of mostly fragmentary quotation.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jedi_dwh
2008-02-07 10:17 am UTC (link)
Ah, back with the ZOMG OPPRESHUNZ. I don't suppose he realizes that there's nothing that can make a simple encyclopedia of HP facts original, correct? Direct quotation or otherwise, since most of the non-direct quotations would be simple rewordings of the same damn thing.

However, if Rowling manages to extend her reach that far into our subculture, she will choke us off very quickly. And if she doesn't, what's to stop the next person from taking this legal precedent to even more dangerous places?

...

There are no proper words. Part of me wishes I'd just hit him over the head with something when I had him in range. What JKR is doing is pretty standard fare, so far as copyrighted material goes. I think he should be more worried about the stranglehold that is going to be placed on fandom if the world goes crazy and he wins. Any respect points he might have had left? Gone.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]princessjessia
2008-02-08 06:26 am UTC (link)
Part of me wishes I'd just hit him over the head with something when I had him in range.

I bet there's a huge group of people wishing this too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]louifee
2008-02-09 01:34 am UTC (link)
I know I'm wishing I'd done so...especially seeing as after Sectus a bunch of us went and had dinner...and I was sitting next to him, oh god.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cleolinda
2008-02-07 10:34 am UTC (link)
A large portion of the Lexicon book text is available online
as part of the filings from Warner Bros last week if you'd like to see
what the final result looks like.


I haven't read many of the court documents because there are only 24 hours in a day, but didn't the WB lawyers submit them as evidence in their own favor? Am I totally dreaming this?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]weyrlady
2008-02-07 11:20 am UTC (link)
He's backpedaling so very, very much! It's almost cute. "It's not really the website! It's smaller then the website! And, uh, we tell people to buy Rowling's books! Yeah, that's it."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]foresthouse
2008-02-07 09:41 pm UTC (link)
Funny meeting you here! *waves*

Seriously, I think SVA should just give up at this point. Why is it worth this much to him to publish something that won't even be as big as the Lexicon, etc.? It makes me think that he's just lost all perspective.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]weyrlady, 2008-02-08 08:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]foresthouse, 2008-02-09 04:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]prettyh, 2008-02-11 04:28 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]foresthouse, 2008-02-12 05:50 am UTC

[info]auralan
2008-02-07 09:11 pm UTC (link)
Yes, the WB lawyers submitted the vast majority of the Lexicon as evidence in their favor. Exhibit A is the typeset portion containing letters A-D. Exhibit B (in three parts) is the remainder of the alphabet that hasn't been formatted or typeset.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cleolinda
2008-02-07 10:22 pm UTC (link)
Have you read over the exhibits? Which side does it really support?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]auralan, 2008-02-07 10:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-02-08 12:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]auralan, 2008-02-08 01:23 am UTC

[info]hinoema
2008-02-07 10:39 am UTC (link)
"You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others."

Speak for yourself. What a fucking parasite, pardon my English. I sincerely hope he's barred from emigrating to the UK on account of endangering the mean IQ level.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]pyratejenni
2008-02-07 05:29 pm UTC (link)
Too late, he's already there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


sockpuppet_rat
2008-02-07 11:22 pm UTC (link)
"You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative works of others...only you do it legally and respectfully and I suck." There! I fixed that for him!

Your icon makes me squee in a very embarrassing fashion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]silentspeaker
2008-02-08 07:36 am UTC (link)
What he means is that the subculture -- i.e., fandom -- lives off the creative work of JKR. Not the individual fans. At least, that's how I parse the sentence. He seems to still not get that her "trying to completely control anything written about the Harry Potter world" only applies to things that are written about the Harry Potter world and sold, and then only when they substantially use her creative work directly rather than being about it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cleolinda
2008-02-08 08:23 am UTC (link)
It was interesting--I didn't even single that part out initially, until several people remarked on it. I guess I knew exactly what he meant when I first read it. But I think on a second glance, particularly given SVA's many speaking engagements and then this book, that "lives off" is a telling turn of phrase. Not "depends on." "Lives off," with that financial implication there, intended or not.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]chikane
2008-02-07 10:47 am UTC (link)
We always try to do that in a legal and respectful way.

Respectful as in asking the author, getting denied, and doing it anyway?
Very respectful indeed.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lidane
2008-02-07 11:22 am UTC (link)
The book is not simply a cut and paste of the Lexicon website. The entries on the website provide much more detailed and complete information than the entries in the book.

Translation: The free website has much more to offer than the $24.95 book. What's the point of buying the book, then?

You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others.

Hey, Steve? Speak for yourself, please. Kthx.

I'm a fan. I enjoyed the books. I've enjoyed the films. I like talking about the characters and the HP series with my fellow fans. And heaven knows I've even written pr0n fan fiction. But I don't live off of Jo's work. My life doesn't revolve around HP. It's just a hobby. I have an identity and a life outside of fandom. Do you?

We always try to do that in a legal and respectful way.


How, exactly? By ignoring four different Cease & Desist letters? By provoking a lawsuit? By demanding to see JKR's notes when they have no bearing on your case? Never mind the legal aspects, how is any of this respectful again? I'm confused.

However, if Rowling manages to extend her reach that far into our subculture, she will choke us off very quickly.

Er, no. Sorry, Steve. That only happens if your side wins.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]littlest_lurker
2008-02-07 11:53 am UTC (link)
Er, no. Sorry, Steve. That only happens if your side wins.

That was the bit that caused me to facepalm the hardest. Is he even aware of what RDR and his lawyers are arguing and what the backlash would be like if they win?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lidane
2008-02-07 10:01 pm UTC (link)
Honestly, I don't think he cares anymore. I think at this point, it's all about getting whatever money he can for the Lexicon.

Watch him bring down the website and denounce fandom the moment RDR loses the case. It's not about any joy he might have derived from HP anymore. It's about his entitlement as a BNF, and that always ends badly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]melisus, 2008-02-08 02:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-02-08 02:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-02-08 02:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lidane, 2008-02-08 02:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladylance, 2008-02-09 05:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]khym_chanur, 2008-02-08 07:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jedi_dwh, 2008-02-08 07:32 am UTC
Think of the children!
[info]saralina25
2008-02-08 08:27 am UTC (link)
Translation: The free website has much more to offer than the $24.95 book. What's the point of buying the book, then?

Don't you remember? It's for those poor children in Africa who can't buy food, clothes or have electricity, but will somehow buy a $25 book. It's all for the children.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kuromitsu
2008-02-07 12:55 pm UTC (link)
"You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others.

What? No, really, WHAT? Jesus Christ.

SVA: innocent victim of circumstances, defender of fandom rights, or deluded entitlement whore trying to leech off the creative work of others? You decide!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]miss_eponine
2008-02-07 04:12 pm UTC (link)
So, when the WB lawyers originally asked for a manuscript of the book, and RDR was all, "Can't you hit the print button, dumbass?" were they actually planning on including all the website information at that point? Have they changed the plans for what is included in the book (once they realized just how screwed they were) and are pretending it was going to be like that all the time?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]auralan
2008-02-08 03:44 pm UTC (link)
Having read all the legal filings, they actually told WB to hit print (or ask somebody for help) to get the timeline. This was when Rapoport was sending cease and desist letters to WB while JKR's lawyers believed he couldn't respond to their communications due to a death in the family. The lawyers were not amused.

As for the book manuscript, RDR/SVA made many confusing and conflicting statements that it either was or wasn't the website in print form. At one point RDR Books' website said the book was typeset directly from the Lexicon website. Other times they accused JKR/WB's side of jumping to conclusions by assuming it was the material on the web site. They seemed to go back and forth many times in quite a few variations depending on who was saying what to whom and the phase of Jupiter's sixth moon.

Conclusion: They're wanky little buggers over at RDR Books, but they only derisively told WB to print the timeline. The manuscript request resulted in a much more complicated ball of wank as RDR's side clearly had never heard of picking a story and sticking to it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]miss_eponine, 2008-02-08 03:54 pm UTC

[info]hoopa
2008-02-07 04:28 pm UTC (link)
You and I are part of a subculture that lives off the creative work of others.

You what--? That ain't even close to being legal. You're a librarian. With a weird obsession, sure. But you can't live off of someone elses creative work without them okaying it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kuromitsu
2008-02-07 07:30 pm UTC (link)
Actually, he's not a librarian anymore. AFAIK he is living off of JKR's creative work via the online Lexicon. But equating this with fandom in general is just... NO.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Errr... That cracking noise? Yeah. My brain.
[info]metropolis22786
2008-02-10 01:01 am UTC (link)
Guys, why has no-one even looked at this?

Part of the problem all along has been the automatic assumption on the part of many that Rowling has the right to completely control anything written about the Harry Potter world. That's quite a huge power grab on her part and from everything I can tell, not legal.

BECAUSE SHE WROTE THE FUCKING THING IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND DOESN'T CARE SO LONG AS YOU DON'T PROFIT.

Jesus Christ.

I've had sneezes that were more intelligent than this.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map