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)

Re: Somewhat off topic - more postings on the Sectus cancelation
[info]diamonderm
2008-02-08 04:09 pm UTC (link)
(And before anyone accuses me of filtering, yes I did also delete comments in my defence. Not that I don't appreciate it, but inviting further invasion of my privacy when that's the very thing at issue? Not very smart.)

Ummm.. "filtering" is the least thing I would accuse her of. You're right, there's no one trashing her when in fact you could accuse her of, let's see...home-wrecking? adultery? Brain-washing a HP lexicon editor? I mean, a case could be made.....

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Sigh
[info]emiweebee
2008-02-08 05:01 pm UTC (link)
Well, THAT was a low blow...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Sigh
[info]cleolinda
2008-02-08 11:38 pm UTC (link)
Yeah... I'm not the fandom police, but I was hoping we wouldn't go there. Again.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Your shiny new trolling account...
[info]xturtle
2008-02-08 08:28 pm UTC (link)
... isn't at all suspicious, is it now?

There's usually a pretty definitive power structure when an older man leaves his wife for a younger woman, and it isn't the femme fatale dynamic that 1950's Hollywood taught you all about. I'm sorry you have a problem with wossname, but your misogynistic speculation is offensive, and your clear grudge (gleefully updating us about the Sectus cancellation, negatively insinuating all over the place -- and that stuff doesn't come out!) is really the sort of thing that leads to you being the mockable one in this situation.

So tell the truth, sport: she laughed at the size of your e-penis, didn't she?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]diamonderm
2008-02-08 09:35 pm UTC (link)
mommy?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]phosfate
2008-02-12 09:28 pm UTC (link)
Mommy's not gonna help you here, kid.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Somewhat off topic - more postings on the Sectus cancelation
[info]sheep
2008-02-08 09:33 pm UTC (link)
Yes, because SVA isn't a grown man capable of making his own decisions, it's all the woman's fault!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Somewhat off topic - more postings on the Sectus cancelation
[info]warrioreowyn
2008-02-09 12:43 am UTC (link)
Adultery, yes. For the home-wrecking, I'd say it's about equally her and Steve's fault. They're both independent human beings with minds of their own.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Somewhat off topic - more postings on the Sectus cancelation
[info]mrbimble
2008-02-09 02:39 am UTC (link)
wow. that's a nice grudgewank you're carrying there. how DO you manage to get thru your day with that big ol' monkey on your back?

(meaning, you're way outta line)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Somewhat off topic - more postings on the Sectus cancelation
[info]bubosquared
2008-02-09 03:17 am UTC (link)
... Dude? No. Just, no.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Somewhat off topic - more postings on the Sectus cancelation
[info]camilla
2008-02-09 01:15 pm UTC (link)
You should rly stick to your thoughts on yaoi.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Somewhat off topic - more postings on the Sectus cancelation
[info]puipui
2008-02-09 07:11 pm UTC (link)
Wow. You're really a twat, aren't you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map