Entry tags:

entitlement, fandom: harry potter, internet lawyers, this is the wank that never ends

"We differ so greatly as to be polar opposites"
The Leaky Cauldron publicly separates from the Lexicon.

[W]e do not think a win for J.K. Rowling means tighter controls on fan creativity at all, and are concerned for the opposite, as well as the attempt to misportray the issues of the case as stated in sworn affadavits. So, after a few days of careful and many-sided discussion, we, as a full staff, decided that people who have such a fundamental disconnect in beliefs cannot and should not be partners in name or spirit, and two days ago informed the Lexicon that we are severing our association....

And while Leaky has always owned the hp-lexicon.org domain and paid for the site’s hosting, we’ve promised to transfer the domain to Steve as soon as litigation is complete (a stipulation that would not have been made had ownership not been mentioned in court documents). We will continue to pay for hosting and provide free support until that day.

Note: Compare this statement to the hosting discussion back in December. There's a pretty big discrepancy there, is all I'm saying.

ETA:

lidane brings us a small sampling of comment wank. Also, did you know that this is a Fifth Amendment issue?

ETA 2, via

cbm and

insanitys_place: The defense has requested JKR as a witness.

ETA 3: SVA leaves a comment at the Lexicon site; the Times Online (UK) weighs in with "J. K. Rowling determined to block RDR Books' Harry Potter 'rip-off' "; a discussion of UK law from another site that has admitted to not reading the manuscript; someone is "baffled at how people are so willing to accept the notion that authors own the ideas they publish"; and I really don't even know what's going on here.

ETA 4: More from SVA in a Lexicon thread.

(Something that might be helpful: get ETAs emailed to you from Watch That Page. It's how I keep track of things elsewhere.)

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

sheep
2008-03-25 07:40 am UTC (link)

Just browsing for more news, came across this old short discussion in which some one says-

Personally, I'm baffled at how people are so willing to accept the notion that authors own the ideas they publish, in the sense that they have a natural right to control what other people do with them (the published ideas). So long as I told you my story without being unduly coerced, I don't see why I should have a natural right to keep you from telling it to someone else, even if you charge a fee. I do believe it would be wrong for you to falsely attribute it to yourself or anyone else, but only because it would be deceit, and not because I have natural rights over the story. It seems to me that if I don't want you to tell anyone else, I should refuse to tell you until you promise not to tell anyone else. This seems to be an unpopular view, but I have yet to come across a sound counterargument. One of the reasons I started this thread was to solicit contrary opinions (but it seems that it's not a very interesting topic to most people).

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?s=623bac50b4f1dfa376d7b3dc6d6e578b&t=30160

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	iwanttobeasleep 2008-03-25 09:31 am UTC (link)
	Someone needs to introduce her to the history lesson where that's how it used to work, and Edgar Allan Poe fucking starved. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2008-03-25 08:56 pm UTC (link)
	Or maybe to how in some cultures, repeating someone else's story (or song, or dance) without special permission, if permission can even be granted, is grounds for serious ass-kicking. Kind of like this case, just with more community shunning instead of stated law. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	nekoneko 2008-03-26 03:02 am UTC (link)
	Send them over to my class. I was teaching that to my students last month. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	trinity_destler 2008-03-25 09:39 am UTC (link)
	OHMYFUCKNO! See, this is why I don't even really want to be published. No one has come up with any rebuttal because they are too stunned that anyone needs this explained to them. Damn. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	vzg 2008-03-25 10:55 am UTC (link)
	Oh, right. Clearly the fault was in that he didn't just re-publish the books, citing JKR as the author but taking the profit for himself. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2008-03-25 12:05 pm UTC (link)
	That whole comment just makes me... ::headdesk:: (Reply to this)(Parent)

	southerngaelic 2008-03-25 01:25 pm UTC (link)
	This...I...what...who....What the everloving HELL?! headdesk (Reply to this)(Parent)

dragonfangirl
2008-03-25 01:26 pm UTC (link)

It seems to me that if I don't want you to tell anyone else, I should refuse to tell you until you promise not to tell anyone else.

...except that kind of is the implicit contract of intellectual property law, right? They publish on the condition that it's assumed the readers will follow copyright law?

Unless they're saying they want a really real promise, because people might be willing to abuse their favored authors for their own personal gain, but surely they wouldn't lie.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	caffeine_fairy 2008-03-25 02:48 pm UTC (link)
	Exactly. You are bound by the terms of the contract the service is provided under, whether you actually sign that contract personally or not. (weary veteran of many an argument about phone service) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2008-03-26 05:13 pm UTC (link)
	I guess that the OP thought that "pinky swears" are binding contracts for the subject at hand. shakes head -- Gourry (Reply to this)(Parent)

	emiweebee 2008-03-25 04:34 pm UTC (link)
	Dude, what's so wrong with that? Let me tell you the story I JUST WROTE about a guy named Humbert Humbert who falls in love with a little girl and offs her mum. What? It worked for Nabokov - eeerrr, I mean, me. When I wrote it. Just now. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	vorpal_blade 2008-03-25 05:20 pm UTC (link)
	Because there's no such thing as copyright law? Oh, wait... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	serai 2008-03-25 09:30 pm UTC (link)
	Eh, I agree that IP law is ridiculous in the form it's in now. The original idea of copyright I totally get behind, i.e. the lifetime rights of the original author. That's a great law. But corporations getting to suck off the titty for 100 years? Fuck no. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	A dissenting opinion dorothy1901 2008-03-26 05:25 pm UTC (link)
	I know we must have a limit, but forty-two years is too much of a limit. I am quite unable to guess why there should be a limit at all to the possession of the product of a man's labor. There is no limit to real estate. -- Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) on copyright (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sandyclaws68 2008-03-26 03:25 am UTC (link)
	Wait, what? What? WHAT?!?!?! . . . . . That's it, I'm done. I can no longer cope with the level of stupidity infesting the internetz. Good-bye, cruel world! pseuicides (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -