Right, so there's a British cop/time-travel show called Life on Mars, in which Sam Tyler, a cop from 2006, is hit by a car and sent back to 1973, where he becomes a cop with Gene Hunt as his boss. Gene Hunt believes that there's nothing that can't be solved by slamming Sam into a wall and getting into his personal space, so you can guess that the slashers are fairly happy.

Even though it's been over for a while now, the lifein1973 comm is still pretty active. And, apparently, in general fairly friendly.

That is, until madmonkeyshow posts her opinion on Gene Hunt in the community, in which she says that romantic Sam/Gene is impossible, and implies that her way of writing Gene and Sam into a BDSM relationship is far more realistic.

The community does not respond well to being told how to write its slashfic, and madmonkeyshow does not respond well to disagreement.

Also, calling the entire community young people isn't patronising or insulting, it's simply THE TRUTH.

Madmonkeyshow gets banned from community, and you'd think that'd be the end of it, as she originally posted about a month ago.

However, madmonkeyshow continues to ramble about the unfairness of it all in her own journal. Clearly there is censorship at work here, so she will sue everyone and go to the media.

Sorry to post again, but this is fairly significant: via Leaky Lounge, full transcripts of all three days of the Lexicon trial. They are from Stanford (whose Fair Use Project is providing RDR's defense), but it's more than we've had before. The discussion of these transcripts at LL is worth reading, by the way.

(Previously on the Thirty Years’ Wank: A metric ton of articles and an interview with SVA. Watch This Page for update alerts.)

ETA: Anne Rice weighs in.

ETA 2 (May 1): Okay, I'm a bit behind on ETA links, but:

insanitys_place: The Lexicon has corrected the "Alohomora" entry with information from JKR's testimony... not that it's credited as such.

Neil Gaiman weighs in again (and again).

waltraute: Orson Scott Card weighs in.

foresthouse: "This article from CNN by "a legal analyst on "American Morning" is new and discusses the law and views from different lawyers (like Tim Wu who was mentioned before). It's well written."

jedi_dwh: "The Hollywood Reporter is still on the case, and doing a pretty good job of keeping things balanced. It appears their law writers actually- GASP- do their homework!"

Ouch: Potter fan a crybaby in court.

So. The trial ended yesterday (on time, somehow). Since full writeups seem to appear on a delay, here's one more entry as a cleanup post and then we'll have some peace and quiet. From what I hear, we've got three to four weeks minimum before we get a ruling.

(Watch This Page for update alerts. Because I will probably cram in as many ETAs as I can rather than break for a new entry.)

( MOAR )

Latest:

ETA 6: A few more articles:

CNN: Potter case raises thorny issues.

Galley Cat: Harry Potter and the Wait for the Verdict.

Booksquare: JK Rowling Is Wrong.

Today: copyright experts testify, from what I've heard, so things should be a bit quieter. Originally the trial was scheduled for three days; I don't know how much longer it's actually going to take. ( MOAR )

Latest:

ETA 8: The Pie Chart of Doom didn't make it in! NOOOOOOOOO.

ETA 9: Via Leaky Lounge: WSJ LB may not have represented Johnson's testimony accurately. Also, WSJers seem to have gotten Cheryl Klein (who did not testify) confused with Suzanne Murphy.

From what I've heard SVA will testify today. Keep in mind, also--I can't remember which blogger said it, but apparently Judge Patterson looks and sounds a lot like John Huston, which adds an extra layer of awesome to the whole thing.

To start the morning off: TLC comment wank; the Hollywood Reporter weighs in; Y ALOHA THAR!

More as it comes. Watch This Page for update alerts.

( MOAR )

ETA 2: Holy hell, you guys. The morning update was the last time I was at a computer, so I am DROWNING now. Here's what I was able to pull together in about an hour: ( SVA testifies )

Latest:

ETA 4: More color commentary from jkrtrialblog on SVA's testimony:

Though I do not support Vander Ark, nor do I care for the lawyers defending RDR, the entire courtroom couldn’t help but laugh when Vander Ark said, “this is exciting,” regarding Alohamora’s origin. The lawyer, obviously beyond unenthused, said, “I’m thrilled myself.”

[...]

When asked if he would not be working RDR following the Lexicon book because he felt he was being misled, he adamantly denied such an allegation. Rowling’s lawyer then brought in a new piece of evidence. She distributed to the judge, Vander Ark, and RDR’s lawyers, a copy of an email sent by Mr. Vander Ark to Melissa Anelli. He stated in the email that he felt RDR had lied to and misled him and that they ruined his standing with fans and JKR and that was why he wouldn’t work with them anymore. The still silence following this piece of evidence leaves me with the conclusion that it’s very possible that RDR did not know that Vander Ark was saying such things behind their back.

As part of evidence, a video clip from a Harry Potter conference that took place in Toronto in August of 2007 was shown. It was about 15 seconds long and showed a bit of Vander Ark’s presentation. From his speech, we heard him say, “Jo quit. We’re taking over now.” [...] Aside from that, the judge was not happy to learn that this brief clip and short excerpt of his speech was the only part of the video brought into evidence. Vander Ark, who should have kept his mouth shut, joked that most of the rest of his presentation could be found on YouTube.

Quick ETA 5: From ari_o: The NYT has a crush on SVA.

I haven't caught it yet, but I'm hearing that the Lexicon case is already on Fox News every half hour. A couple of things I held on to over the weekend:

The latest documents on Justia.

'Potter' author seeks to block fan book. "In court Friday, Hammer said Rowling's lawyers did not want Vander Ark in the courtroom while Rowling testifies."

More later. Watch This Page for update alerts.

ETA: ( MOAR )

Latest:

ETA 9: New at Leaky Cauldron: First Day of JKR/WB vs RDR Books Trial, at which Leaky staffer(s?) were in attendance and able to take notes. There are some really interesting points in Rowling's testimony, but I'll only quote from the Rapoport notes since we haven't seen much from his:( Read more... )

Thanks to the wank_report mouse for the tip off.

the summary:

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT. Chancery Stone, fandom_wank mockee and author of the infamous 'Danny' 'mad as hell and not going to take it... er... two years later'! Thrill! As she describes how badass she is! Marvel! As she repeatedly laments the horrors that have lead her down the path of legal action against a certain fan-run journalling site! GASP! As she remarks of herself, "Once I scent blood I'm in there like a heat-seeking missile."

COMING SOON to a tl;dr blog post near you.

( More highlights under cut )

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.)

Ah, finally something worth a new post: SVA gives a short interview to BlogHogwarts, a Spanish-language site. The original English version is at Leaky Lounge.

(Previously on the Hundred Years' Wank: ( Read more... )

ETA: New Justia document: "Counsel for Plaintiff hereby advise the Court and opposing counsel that they have elected to proceed with the bench trial and have Your Honor decide this case." I believe the deadline for the defendants requesting a jury trial was March 14.

ETA wtf: Conan O'Brien mentions the case on his show?

Okay, on Friday, a document appeared on Justia that said... well, we weren't entirely sure what it said, or what it was really in response to. The upside of it was that there was going to be an injunction hearing on March 13, but... something about going ahead and squeezing in a trial rather than waiting on a summary judgment that sent both sides into a flurry of trying to figure out how to fly witnesses to New York on six days' notice (JKR is apparently attending another trial--involving paparazzi?--in England on that date already). Fortunately, RDR has an update:

New York Federal District Court Judge Robert Patterson has scheduled a trial for March 24, 25 and 26 in the matter of Warner Bros. Entertainment and J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books. The judge consolidated a previously scheduled preliminary injunction hearing with the trial.

Also:( Read more... )


ETA 8, because I'm just going to keep on trucking on this one entry until something important actually happens:

Via rustybitch: Info/Law, the one blog that gets it, has posted a new analysis. Key passages:

For transformation, let’s dispose quickly of a red herring: RDR/VA’s work - and it’s extensive - in cataloging and assembling information about the Potter world gets zero weight in fair use analysis. Feist makes this clear: "sweat of the brow" copyright is dead - you get no protection for your work because of the effort involved in pulling it together. Rather, the key is the new expression you add - or, here, the new transformative expression. And I don’t think there’s enough of it.

[...]

Is this a good outcome? I think so. Remember that the 4 factors are non-exclusive. I’d argue Judge Patterson should consider an additional factor here: behavior by the copyright owner. Rowling has been supportive - very much so - of the Lexicon as long as it remained on-line and relatively non-commercial. To the degree that free speech concerns arise in this case (as the memo in opposition of the injunction argues, at p. 6), Rowling’s conduct mitigates those worries.... She’s allowing this information to be presented to her fans and the public in general, while trying to minimize financial harm to her works. Copyright is often presented as a balance between incentives to produce and access to that production; here, Rowling’s approach seems to find that balance.... In Potter terms, though, I think this is a triumph for Dumbledore’s Army, and not for the Death Eaters.

From auralan: "RDR Books has set up Media contacts for the Harry Potter Lexicon Case. They're not bothering to make any pretense that this isn't all about getting as much press coverage as possible."

From hooloovoo_too: More conflict-of-interest weirdness.

From insanitys_place: "I was able to dig up the two Lanthorn articles if anyone is interested in them. This one was before the GVSU forum. And here's the follow up article."

From alexielnet: The Lexicongate drinking game.

Previously on The Hundred Years' Wank: RDR demands to see JKR's notes, judge lols; RDR files its response; the NYT weighs in; grudgepuppet accuses TLC's Melissa of tax fraud, recipes ensue.

Leaky grudgewank hits the Times Union. Key sentence: "Fansites such as The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet have been selling ad space on their sites for years and some have cried fowl."* Includes wank in the comments.

* Which fowl? "TURKEY! PHEASANT! CHICKENNNN!"

And then: JKR/WB Respond in Lexicon Suit. From TLC: "This is the last filing before a hearing on March 13 to determine if a preliminary injunction will be granted. After that there still may or may not be a trial to determine if infringement has taken place." ( Key points )

Whew. *goes to have a lie-down*

ETA: From karintheswede, "Methuen, the British firm set to publish the Lexicon if RDR/SVA win, is ' "fairly confident" the court will rule in RDR's favour,' according to The Bookseller."

ETA 2 from TLC: "Harvard Law Wayne State University faculty and copyright/IP professor Derek Bambauer says that a recent NYT article on the case "Foul[ed] Up Fair Use" and contains an "embarassingly simple mistake of copyright law."

ETA 3: The filings are finally up at Justia.

ETA 4: Most viewed new story on Yahoo News: Rowling bashes 'Harry Potter Lexicon.'

ETA 5: RDR Books speaks. ( Read more... )

ETA 5b: The Lexicon story hits Smart Bitches, Trashy Books.

ETA 5c: From ravenbell: an article from Cinematical: "Discuss: When Fans Go Too Far." Includes wank in the comments; I'm not really sure what's going on with the "bright shiny snowflake" comment.

ETA 6: Nora Roberts speaks:

Fan fiction doesn’t copy the author’s story and call it their own, but uses it or the characters, as a springboard for another story. And not for profit. Much different, to my mind, than what Edwards did over many years and with many sources.

But this suit seems to involve someone who IS taking the author’s words, without her permission, and trying to sell it for profit. I’d sue, too.

I don’t mind fan fiction (understand those authors who do), but when I find my work on the internet--for profit or not--copied and claimed by someone else, I shut it down.

NORA ROBERTS HAS SPOKEN.

Just one thing, but it's that good. Via 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 [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: ( Read more... )

ETA 2, from 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 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:

( Read more... )

ETA 4: From 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 ari_o: Wank on the TLC entry, also reported by pyratejenni. "Who does JK Rowling think she is, that she’s better than JRR Tolkien and Gene Roddenberry?"

ETA 5 from lidane: Drama 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.

Apologies to folks sick of Lexicon wank, but--from 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 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:

>>  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."

>> 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 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.

Watch That Page reports some updates to the RDR Books site:

THANK YOU FOR THE MANY EXPRESSIONS OF SUPPORT FOR OUR AUTHOR STEVE VANDER ARK AND HIS HARRY POTTER LEXICON.  The preliminary injunction case will be heard February 28 by New York Federal District Judge Robert Patterson. More information on the Harry Potter Lexicon lawsuit is available here.

And just in case you didn't see the Slate article at fandom_lounge, RDR wants to make sure you know about it:

* J.K. Rowling's Dark Mark -- Why She Should Lose Her Copyright Lawsuit Against the Harry Potter Lexicon, by Tim Wu, Columbia University Law Professor.

1) Stanford Law group enters fray over Harry Potter guide.

2) So the GVSU talk was last night. From various posters: attendee accounts, plus video.

An amusing note from corellianscribe: "Much to my eternal amusement, he plopped down behind me and asked if I was from journalfen. Translation: was I one of the crazies from Fandom Wank?" But furthermore: SVA came off reasonably well. RDR... not so much. ( Like he'd just been told Christmas was coming twice this year )

Also, regarding the Star Wars PDF precedent: ( You can do that? )

ETA: RDR Books updates. Again. Key sentence, IMO: "It simply is not the case that authors can exploit copyright law to prevent analysis and commentary on their work."


ETA 2: From aewgliriel: "Someone I know over on Jedi Council Forums [corellianscribe?] is/was involved with the forum on this, and here's what they had to say." Key section: "And, at the end of the talk, a few things became very clear: a) RDR is full of crap and mostly blowing a lot of hot air around. Also, they're not very nice. b) SVA is a nice guy who may or may not ever pull his head out of encyclopedia mode, but he has terrible judgment when it comes to picking publishers. c) 'Cousin Vinny' really doesn't know what he's talking about. At all." Also, she would love to comment here--where's the request-an-account place again?

Speaking of SVA picking publishers, a few things I'm hearing from elanor, take it as you will: ( Debunking misconceptions )

ETA 3: Via fortheloveof22: TLC's Melissa's version of the Lexicon hosting situation.

Previously on the Thirty Days' Wank: RDR Books will not ever, ever stop updating its site.

Today: RDR Books updates its site. Again. Some more. ( ABOUT OUR LEGAL TEAM )

Also, re: the December 5 SVA/RDR "opportunity to discuss 'the David and Goliath legal battle that this case entails'" at GVSU, word on the street is that 1) GVSU may be misrepresenting the purpose of the forum (i.e., that it's not to discuss the case) and 2) it may be canceled.

RDR Books has updated. New passage: ( Looks like someone's been reading up on IP law )

Also, they added a number of links. New for us: Yatterings and "A commentary by University of Arizona Emeritus Professor Ken Goodman" (ETA: published twice by RDR Books). Hosted on the site: An open letter from librarian and independent scholar Brenda M. Williams.

And from legionseagle: The Lexicon rights offering page is still up at Publishers Marketplace. You know, despite the injunction.

ETA: And oh, man, is it a good one. ( When will the Lexicon be published? )

ETA 2: More. Seriously. ( We may not be the ones who are confused, I'm just saying )

ETA 3: From fortheloveof22: 2 battling 'Harry Potter' author to speak in Grand Rapids: "The forum, set for 7-9 p.m. at GVSU's Grand Rapids campus, 401 W. Fulton, is described by GVSU as an opportunity to discuss 'the David and Goliath legal battle that this case entails.' "

Previously: WB figures out how to hit print, a restraining order is granted, both RDR and SVA update, Whomping Willows weigh in, a Salon blogger doesn't get it, comments explode.

Today, from auralan: You, too, can contribute to RDR's defense fund.

We will continue to update on our legal defense of author Steve Vander Ark. Because we have agreed to not take new orders until the court makes its decision at a February 8 hearing on the plaintiff's request for an injunction, you can still buy any of our other books. If you have already ordered the Lexicon and would like to have your prepayment refunded simply email us. Otherwise your payment will be held in an escrow account until the court decides if we can ship you the book. RDR Books welcomes your support for our significant legal expenses in this David and Goliath legal battle. You can help us defend the rights of authors like Steve Vander Ark and readers everywhere by buying our other titles on this site or at your favorite bookstore. We also welcome contributions to the RDR Books Lexicon Defense Fund. All contributors will receive a free autographed book from RDR, ideal for Christmas giving.

ETA 2: From immlass, more from Salon: More on why Rowling is wrong on the Potter lexicon.

ETA 3: By legionseagle, via blackflag: Top Ten Hints For Stopping An Awkward Situation Turning Into an Multi-Part Farce.

From lerefuge: Harmony Forever weighs in. The Avada Kedavra satellite referenced: a classic Scott Lynch LJ entry. Note: Early on, when I was casting a wider net and posting a lot of different things because we didn't quite know in what direction things were going to go, I linked to some speculation here that the Lexicon had an anti-Ginny bias. I shouldn't have done that--it didn't have anything to do with the lawsuit. It was wanky and I'm sorry.

From tunxeh: A new thread about the lawsuit on Boing Boing. It's based around the Salon link, by the way.

tez shows up with the Seal of Extreme Fail! Huzzah!

ETA 4: From lucky13: Ars Technica doesn't get it, either.

ETA 5: From auralan: RDR was served, and apparently the recipient (Rapoport?) refused to give his name to the server.

ETA 6: tunxeh: "And now it's on Slashdot. Linked only to the Ars Technica post, which calls the Lexicon a blog and seems to be based on the Salon story. Or maybe Ars Technica is based on Boing Boing's take on the Salon story, I can't tell any more."

ETA 7: From auralan: RDR updates again. "The irony of an author suing a librarian has not been lost on many commentators including one attorney who told us: 'If the world's first libraries opened this year, I seriously wonder if there might be lawyers at the front door trying to stop reference books of all kinds from going up on the shelves.'"

Well, this answers a few questions. Previously: ( WB figures out how to hit print )

New: A TLC update. "A new document authored by a recently retained lawyer for RDR claims that owing to RDR's lack of an intellectual property lawyer, status as a small publishing house (it claims sales of a little more than $100,000/year), and present plan to have legal briefs prepared by a cousin of the house's owner, a delay in responding to JKR/WB is necessary. The lawyer requested a seven-week delay, until the first week in January, which is after the current US publication date for the book. The letter notes, however, that during the delay RDR would voluntarily freeze their actions, amounting to the same results as a preliminary injunction on publication. According to the document, the application has been 'denied without prejudice to counsel for defendant and plaintiff appearing this afternoon[.]' " Update: A second update at TLC seems to indicate that it was approved, and TLC is going to try to figure out which one it is. "Also, the entire page containing previous statements by RDR regarding the Lexicon book has been deleted. The product has also been removed from pre-order on the site." Looks like a real lawyer really is on the case.

auralan points out the full sentence: "Indeed, RDR's present plan is to have its briefs composed by the cousin of RDR's owner, a solo practitioner who is not himself an intellectual property lawyer, and a man who (though he has some general idea of what RDR does), will need some time to educate himself as to the facts and issues in this particular case."

ETA: The RDR page is back. The additions: ( Read more... )

ETA 2, and it's a big one from TLC, via lidane: NY Judge Issues Restraining Order to Prevent Publication of Lexicon; JK Rowling Updates. ( Denial of delay, restraining order granted )

ETA 3: Someone claiming to be an RDR employee has issues with WB's side of the story as well.

ETA 4: Elanor's telling me now (she says she's allowed to say this, but please regard these as unofficial, non-binding communications) that the British cover was "a rush job just to have something and was never intended to be used. The actual cover does not look like the adult HP books, and they've had quite a lot of grief getting it changed. The British publisher regrets sending that other cover and apologised for it." Furthermore, she asks people not to assume that SVA = RDR (and with good reason, quite frankly).

ETA 5: God help us all, there's a new RDR update. ( Attention! Attention! Please pay it to us! )

ETA 6: TLC update: WB statement. ( Read more... )

ETA 7: SVA posts again at the Lexicon. Also, I've gotten a clarification to the effect that there are two lawyers working for RDR now--the New York lawyer who wrote that last document and the cousin lawyer he mentioned, who is still writing the briefs. You know, as soon as he reads up on IP law.

ETA 8: The Whomping Willows weigh in. Alliteration is awesome!

ETA 9 from mistressrenet: Lexiwank hits Salon. "Moreover, Vander Ark and others who work on the HPL have spent much time compiling it. Why shouldn't they be entitled to profit from their labor?" And then, "It's whether she's on solid moral ground. And the answer, obviously, is no; indeed, considering how much her fans have done for her, her move is even more lamentable than Prince's recent promise to sue his supporters." Comments are just getting started--in fact, the second commenter links to praetorianguard.

I really apologize for this--it really is starting to get ridiculous, the number of entries. If people are really, truly sick of Lexicon wank or want to boot it into the Cornfield, let me know.

In case you missed, uh, ETAs 6-8:

RDR spokesman writes to the Terminus 2008 staff.

A PDF file of the actual filed complaint.

elanor_isolda counters several of the allegations. (sententia brings up an interesting point re: Elanor's entry: "Taking the Lexicon completely out of the equation, Warners/Rowling thought that the material was obviously fine when it was published (word for word) by someone else [the plagiarism alleged by Elanor regarding another book on Amazon] otherwise they would have sued them/served them with a C&C order, so why should they sue when Steve uses those exact same words? I find that bit a little weird.")

New: SVA updates the the Lexicon's What's New page. "NOTE: I know that many people (waves to the JournalFen crowd) are seeing conspiracy here with the comments gone, but to be frank, it’s nothing sinister. Well, unless you find lawyers sinister." I'm not going to make the obvious joke on that one.

WatchThatPage tells me that something's different about the RDR Books Lexicon page, and it cites this section: ( Read more... )

Can anyone tell if any of it is really different, in the interest of equal time?

Note: So many fan reactions are following the Snacky Template that I don't intend to link to anymore unless there's something really spectacular. That said, you can always discuss anything you find in the comments.

ETA: Since it's just not HP wank without accusations of plagiarism, the Hannah Abbott entries she mentioned are very interesting compared side-by-side. ( Images )

ETA 2: From white_serpent: Why the Great Timeline Duplicated Date Error may not be all that airtight a piece of evidence.

ETA 3: Remember what I said about no more fan reaction links? Well... from narcissam: "We are declaring today Steve Vander Ark Day, November 1 - All Saints Day."

Also, a nonnymouse just left me a comment: http://www.stevevanderarkfans.com. Interestingly, it predates this whole saga by a good three months at least.

ETA 4: Another mouse: "The judge in the case says RDR Books has to come before the court on November 19. Also includes some of the info from the Lexicon that they plan to use in court." Barring a settlement (which is where I'm laying my money. Uh. So to speak), that's a while for y'all to wait.

ETA 5: The RDR Books page has changed again: ( By now the story of the J.K. Rowling/ Warner Bros. Halloween lawsuit aimed at Steve Vander Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon has become news from Shanghai to South Bend )

ETA 6: Accept no substitutes! Plus, a new filk. That said, I am determined to stay on this one entry unless/until something earth-shattering happens or we hit ETA 20.

ETA 7: From narcissam: ( Hey, I wanna win )

ETA 8: From elanor: WB has now seen the book? Is it possible after all "to settle this case to Ms. Rowling's satisfaction and publish the book" [my emphasis]?

ETA 9: From TLC: Update on JKR/WB vs. RDR Books Case: "The day before last, a court ordered RDR to hand a copy of the manuscript to J.K. Rowling's lawyers, and one was delivered, according to those lawyers. JKR/WB are seeking a preliminary injunction (source here) to the sale of the book, and have not apparently been deterred by viewing the manuscript. RDR has also made claims on their web site that they have "repeatedly offer[ed] to settle this case to Ms. Rowling's satisfaction and publish the book," requests which apparently have not been agreed upon. TLC has asked RDR what the settlement was and has not been met with a response."

ETA 10: Praetorianguard has posted another analysis. I recommend reading the comments as well. Also, an interesting point regarding the book alleged to have plagiarized the Lexicon (see Hannah Abbott screencap above): ( Read more... )

ETA 11: Another anonycomment: Apparently when RDR (allegedly?) said "Print out the website," WB took them at their word.