Oi!

[ivyblossom]

Well, this just makes me sad:

Rowling acknowledged she once bestowed an award on Vander Ark's Web site because, she said, she wanted to encourage a very enthusiastic fan.

But she said she "almost choked on my coffee" one morning when she realized Vander Ark had warned others not to copy portions of his Web site. She said she now has second thoughts about all the encouragement she has given to online discussions and Web sites devoted to her books.

"I never censored it or wanted to censor it," she said, adding that if she loses the lawsuit, she will conclude she essentially gave away her copyrights by encouraging the Web sites.

"Other authors will say, `I need to exercise more control. She was an idiot. She let it all go,'" Rowling said.

Comments

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

You're right, because although you may have read those documents your comments have shown me that you have a rather poor understanding of how the law works. I don't "agree to disagree" with you - I simply disagree with you, and I was never trying to get something "good" to come out of this. I do not have to read every scrap of evidence presented in the trial to have an opinion about the way Rowling comes off in the press.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Nor to understand the basics of how copyright works. My favourite version of this same argument is the one where faculty believe that they own the copyright of their students' notes...because students are writing down short form paraphrases of what the instructor said and did in class, the instructor imagines that they can tell students who they can and can't show their notes to, or whether or not those notes can go online. Unfortunately for them...no. Students own the copyright to their own notes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/942157opa.html), even if there's nothing "original" in them.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

Sigh. I don't like it when students sell their notes, but it's not because I believe I have copyright over their notes. But they are making money off of my intellectual work, which I do reserve the right to (i.e., I reserve the right to my lectures, not their notes). But I would never try to sue them or throw a fit about it. I'd probably just go ahead and put them out on a public website so that everyone could access them for free instead.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, exactly. Why anyone would want to use someone else's perspective on a lecture to study from, I have no idea...

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

You're right, because although you may have read those documents your comments have shown me that you have a rather poor understanding of how the law works.

Ditto from my view about you. You go with the 'if this is true' when I go with 'this is true.' Your uncertainty and guesses are disproven by the legal documents filed under oath by both parties. All I'm doing is relaying that info to you. Encyclopedias/lexicons/guidebooks fall under fair use to only a certain extent. That's the whole basis of this lawsuit. It's to find out to what extent that they do fall under fair use. I hardly think that a judgement against the book will wipe out true critical analysis and parody.

Two comments ago, I just said that JKR verbally endorsed a HP guidebook while testifying in court yesterday. You then comment back that JKR doesn't support guidebooks at all. I'm sorry, but she really did say that while under oath.

I don't "agree to disagree" with you - I simply disagree with you, and I was never trying to get something "good" to come out of this.

I see. I use that phrase to amicably end a discussion that's apparently going nowhere. Whatever works for you.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

Dude, you just don't get it. I never said Rowling doesn't support guidebooks. I said that no one writing such a book needs to get her permission first, and thus she doesn't "permit" anyone to write them because she doesn't have that power.

End the discussion if you want, just don't try to wallpaper over our disagreement with horrible cliches.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Thanks for clarifying. To me, allowing and supporting was the same thing until this explanation. I really do 'get' it now.

End the discussion if you want, just don't try to wallpaper over our disagreement with horrible cliches.

I'm sorry that you see that. I honestly don't know how I'm wallpapering over a disagreement or where I used a horrible cliche. A cliche to you is not necessarily a cliche to another. I've been calmly discussing this subject here with the intent of just relaying info back and forth. Since you've made it clear to me that you don't have the same intent, then we are just at an impasse.