Entry tags:

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

"Obviously, it was not the outcome we had hoped for or wanted"
So did you hear the news? cleolinda's head exploded Er, I mean RDR Books is appealing.

That's right, you heard me: RDR Books has issued a notice of appeal. Wankas can scarcely believe it. I mean, even Trelawney wouldn't have seen this one coming, yuk yuk yuk.

Naturally, it's reported on various blogs, like Slashdot as well as Leaky Cauldron, and the same arguments from before are rehashed.

You can still refer to RDR Books' website for, uh, information as well.

ETA: Recording Industry vs. The People, which had just recently shared an opinion about the Lexicaon fair use decision, revisits the topic. For those of you who wants to know what {The Common Man} has to say about this.

Also, did you know that the www.hp-lexicon.org was recently named one of the nation's top 15 "Great Web Sites" for children last week by the American Library Association? How embattled.

ETA 2: I just did an ETA and forgot to tack this on. "It ain't over til it's over!"

Info/Law says Slashdot commenters are oversimplifying things, and Techdirt says JKR made her case based on emotion rather than law and says the case is damaging her rep.

ETA 3: sheep gives us another judicial document that I really wish were really real.

Also, a post on rattlesnakeroot's journal commemorates the anniversary of the judicial proceedings, casting Lexicongate characters as Harry Potter ones.

ETA 4: From mariem_1:“It was all very hurtful,” says Vander Ark , who is still such a fan himself that he doesn’t blame the multi-millionaire author at all for her actions... Vander Ark says that he now longs to meet Rowling - purely to say how much he regrets upsetting her.

mariem_1 continues to make my life easier by pointing out where an anonymouse took issue with rattlesnakeroot's comments on the case. A summary:

Anonymous:
Is the lack of reading comprehension (whether willful or not, I have no idea) contagious around here?

rattlesnakeroot:
Thanks for the psychoanalysis. It's so kind of you to study us this way.

And in case anyone missed it, I'm not actually Cleo; she retired from Lexicongate and I'm merely ~~Sugitchi's ghostwriter~~ her subpar replacement. cleolinda was last seen dancing with glee.

And, in celebration of cleolinda's contributions to keeping us all on top of the tsunami of this wank, here's a refresher course of the past year in Lexicongate:

1: The First Report.
2: "How would it benefit us in any way?"
3: "I would never have thought that a print version could be judged differently"
4: "A vast international smear campaign"
5: "Well, unless you find lawyers sinister"
6: The book has been seen
7: Autographed by who?
8: Another wad of tinfoil for your chewing pleasure
9: RDR lawyers up
10: On the third day of Wanksmas...
11: Just a quick update
12: JK Rowling, Defender of Fandom
13: Old Faithful returns
14: Epic burn
15: A slight change of plans
16: "Friends can disagree and still be friends"
17: "We differ so greatly as to be polar opposites"
18: And so it begins
19: Lexicon trial, day 2
20: Lexicon trial, day 3
21: The day after
22: Trial Transcripts
23: “Melissa has done more to hurt me than Rowling”
24: Lexicongate is over... for certain values of "over"

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Is the lack of reading comprehension contagious? Part II

mariem_1
2008-11-17 07:26 pm UTC (link)

"Anonymous:
Your implication that in all these months I haven't bothered to read the actual case is rather amusing, but not very friendly.

Before you talk too much about being friendly, I'd ask you not to put words into my mouth. I've never implied that you haven't bothered to read the documents; I've stated outright that you obviously didn't completely understand all of them, since you've been referring to the Lexicon manuscript as "Document 22", when Document 22 is, in fact, the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (which is, interestingly enough, plainly written on the very site that I linked to in my first post, and that you have a link to yourself). However, if you'd prefer not to be corrected on your mistakes (or, I'm starting to wonder, if you prefer that no one argue against you), I'll happily go away, and keep quiet".

"saiphgrl:
"I'm starting to wonder, if you prefer that no one argue against you"
Well, that's a very "friendly" sentiment.

I think you will see that having a discussion and not changing your opinion amidst the discussion does not mean you "prefer that no one argue against you". It simply means that you have your own opinion.

rattlesnakeroot:
That's exactly true. I don't mind a good debate, but if someone harps on one single part of the case - word count, which is the lowest common denominator of Fair Use - and ignores other tests - such as whether a book is transformative as an index or scholarship - or whether an author has the right to stop all encyclopedias before they are published - the Judge said "No" - then I just get bored.

Nothing about Fair Use is that simple in U.S. Law. Ask Yoko Ono, who just lost a case even though her husband's "words" were used in a film of which she didn't approve. She owned the words, but not the transformative use.

Anonymous:
*sigh*

Is the lack of reading comprehension (whether willful or not, I have no idea) contagious around here?

If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd already know that the reaction you partially quoted was not in response to anyone not changing their minds; it was in response to repeated occurrences of rattlesnakeroot putting words in my mouth and arguing against those words instead of what I'd actually written, as well as a clear tendency to want to veer off on wild, off-topic tangents, instead of answering clearly stated (and fairly simple) questions.

In my experience, when someone starts attempting to avoid the other side's arguments, in favor of arguing against straw-men, it's very often a sign that they really don't want to keep the discussion going, for one reason or another; and that's the impression I was starting to get when I wrote what I did. Luckily, if I'm wrong, there's a very, very simple way of proving it: Stay on topic, answer the questions asked, and stay away from the straw-men. Speaking from personal experience, it's really not hard at all.

rattlesnakeroot:
Thanks for the psychoanalysis. It's so kind of you to study us this way.

Is the lack of reading comprehension (whether willful or not, I have no idea) contagious around here?

Yes, it is ~ I hope you get over it soon. :)

Since you are anonymous, I think I'll give you the honorary title of "Topicnator," since you are still ordering people around. Are you a Moderator on some forum or something?

Sounds like it. But this isn't your forum".

Anonymous:
If asking for basic common courtesy is too much, then I honestly have no idea how to continue this discussion, so I'll simply bow out.

I would suggest that you post some kind of warning, informing other visitors that the common rules of discussion and politeness are not followed here, so they'll know what they're getting into beforehand, but seeing how my other comments have been received, I'll pass on that.

Best of luck,
Topicnator"

Of course, you'd better read the whole debate. It delivers.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Is the lack of reading comprehension contagious? Part II caito 2008-11-18 12:26 am UTC (link)
	I linked to it in the main report. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Is the lack of reading comprehension contagious? Part II disdainful_soul 2008-11-18 05:02 am UTC (link)
	headdesk (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Is the lack of reading comprehension contagious? Part II tomato_ja_nai 2008-11-19 12:35 am UTC (link)
	...facepalm (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -