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

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Rowling's copyright is legally binding when she so chooses to enforce it. She has allowed an abundance of other Harry Potter guide books to publish because they fall under fair use. In fact she verbally endorsed one of them from the Leaky Cauldron's latest article about what happened in court yesterday. Bad fan or not doesn't matter, I agree with that. But that's all being part of RDR's defense that JKR has had to repeatedly respond to. I believe that JKR has adequately proven that Steve's book doesn't fall under fair use.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

I believe that JKR has adequately proven that Steve's book doesn't fall under fair use.

And she's being a money-grubbing jerk about it as far as I can see. I simply don't believe that the book consists of direct quotations and little else. Why would a publisher agree to publish it? Why would anyone buy it? There must be something else going on.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

There is something else going on that you don't seem to know since you haven't read all of the articles and legal documents about the case. Since you already have admitted that you don't care to do so, then you're not going to ever know and not take my word for it either. Since this is hindering our discussion, maybe we should just agree to disagree and end it.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

The original lexicon wasn't just direct quotations, but it certainly was pretty much entirely paraphrases and extrapolations from the book with quotation as support...as a lexicon should be. I understand why fandom doesn't like one of its own selling a fandom product, and I presume JKR is unhappy because she thinks this lexicon will get in the way of the sales of her encyclopedia, when it's finished. This is patently ridiculous, because presumably she would add all kinds of new information to hers and not just comb through her previous work to put the details in one place. I understand if they want to work with the publisher to ensure that the cover makes it clear that this is not an endorsed publication, but...bringing a weeping JKR into the court case and saying that Steve did shitty work is...ugly.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

That's what I assumed as well. An encyclopedia-type reference shouldn't contain analysis or new information. IT should simply organize the existing work in a way that makes it accessible to other scholars/readers. And I really don't see the need for weeping over it anywhere.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

I should add the Rowling did not "allow" the other guide books to exist. She has to legal right to dictate what other people write about her work. Her copyright does not extend over every use of the word "Harry Potter."

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but since you're not taking my word for what she has said in court because you haven't read other articles nor will read the legal documents published online, then you will never believe anything I've said. Because of this lack of belief and information, maybe we should just agree to disagree and end this discussion because nothing good is going to come out of this until you know everything that's going on about it.

[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.