| 1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) |
|
|
  |
|
|
 Jun 13 2008, 11:33 PM
|
Firefox's personal PR Dude
Posts: 6,203
Joined: 1:00pm January 4, 2005
Location: Seafaring on the S.S. Silver Inklish
|
Hi guys!
it looks like we've hit thread number fifteen. Things have been nicely tranquil lately, which is good. Please remember to keep the discussion on the actions and choices of the players involved in the case, rather than questioning their character or morals.
Thanks everyone! I look forward to seeing our thread get its temporary driving permits on the next go-round. 
--NickTLC
---------------------------------------
All of the related news articles can be found on this feed:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/archives/category/389
The most recent article is on the conclusions and findings of fact here:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/5/1...ons-of-law-pt-2
You can view the evidence and legal proceedings here at Justia.com
There is also now a poll on the main site where you can vote for which side you believe will win the trial and see how others voted.
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part I
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part II
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part III
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part IV
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part V
WB/JKR vs RDR/SVA Part VI
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part VII
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part VIII
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part IX
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part X
WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part XI
WB/JKR vs. RDR Part XII
WB/JKR vs. RDR Part XIII
WB/JKR vs. RDR Part XIV
"The Impact of this suit on Fandom"
"The Media & JKR/WB vs RDR Books"
--------------------
Kiss a little baby. Give the world a smile.
And if you take an inch, give them back a mile.
Cause if you lie like a rug, and you don't give a damn,
you're never going to be as happy as a clam.
~It's a Big, Old Goofy World, by John Prine |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2008, 04:23 AM
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary
Posts: 478
Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005
|
Since this is a new thread, I'm going to re-address a few questions I've had along the way.
1. How many people supporting the Defense actually believe the LM to be fair use as the law stands, as opposed to believing the law needs to be changed to make it so?
2. Who or what is the HP Lexicon (site)? Is it an identifiable entity capable of holding a copyright?
3. How much of the actual LM was written solely by SVA, as opposed to Lisa or other LM volunteers?
4. Most importantly:
I'm curious as to how those supporting the Defense/ FUP's position that fair use needs to be expanded to accommodate this work justify the apparent contradiction in this position; that while the strict protection of a work according to the exclusive rights granted by current copyright law is said to be 'monopolistic' and wrong on the Plaintiffs part and these rights need to be expanded, the self-proclaimed author for whose benefit they advocate these expanded rights has every intention of securing the same copyright granting the same rights for the secondary work as that of the Plaintiff, and of using the same legal recourse to prevent similar infringements. How is this justifiable?
(ETA: Ok, that sentence was way too long. Runonitis strikes again.) 
(ETA2: *looks down* Ahem. Yes, you.  Your take on these?)
This post has been edited by Hinoema: Jun 15 2008, 11:22 AM
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2008, 10:37 AM
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher
Posts: 198
Joined: 9:47am April 18, 2005
Location: Snape's Army
|
QUOTE(DavidEnglish) Ah, and yet, SIP, there's the mystery of Peter Tummons' Methuen, who was in on the book before SVA. Methuen, in theory, was supposed to release the book before RDR and, according to Elanor Isolda, had anglicized the text and was set to print. (She said the French publisher had already printed books, which I found hard to believe.) And yet Methuen hadn't actually signed a contract with RDR for the rights. So, in theory, any injunction passed by the courts would not apply to them and Methuen could come out with its own revised and rewritten Lexicon book in the fall. Who knows? Tummons might even sell US rights to some new company belonging to Roger Rapoport.
Yes, that's a conspiracy theory. Though it's a rather common one in American business. I worked next to the Ontario courts for some time and one lawyer used to tell me of this man whose business plan was entirely based on serial bankruptcies. He'd import all these goods and then avoid paying his creditors by declaring bankruptcies. Another person I knew, an MBA, told me of shell companies in which one company held the assets while another held liabilities and often a third held the management. There's a great line from the Greta Garbo comedy "Ninotchka" that goes "Capitalists accumulate millions by taking loss after loss." Ah, it's a funny old marketplace.
Going back to this conspiracy theory, I've been asking friends who are attorneys about this, and there are a couple of major problems, so reality check:
1. The lawsuit verdict will be about the book itself, and whether it should be published. A copyright case is about the "work." If the book is found to be infringing, it will be infringing no matter who publishes it. Methuan and RDR cannot fool the Court in the way you are implying.
2. If RDR declared bankruptcy, he could not go around making business deals on the side. It might solve his debt problem, but people who undergo bankruptcy in the U.S. lose their credit rating, for instance. and there are other restrictions. Maybe someone alot richer than RDR could absorb a bankruptcy and then roll back into something else, but in this case his business was not huge to begin with. Hearing a story about "some guy" who was a shady wheeler-dealer does not make RDR a crook - that is a logical fallacy.
3. Defying a Judge's order to suppress the book (if that ever happens, which I doubt) would be Contempt of Court, and punishable by jail time. He couldn't fool anyone by publishing under another "entity."
4. RDR would probably rather have a clear verdict and win with a precedent setting decision so he could keep his business, publish the book, and keep his integrity. It might take a long time on appeal, but that's probably the most realistic scenario.
5. I again applaud the imagination in this Conspiracy Theory, but with the eyes of the media and the publishing world on this, RDR couldn't get away with all this, even if he wanted to, and I truly doubt he wants to do anything of the sort.
This post has been edited by Silver Ink Pot: Jun 15 2008, 10:43 AM
--------------------
“I don’t see what there is to fuss about, Igor.” ~Severus Snape
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2008, 11:39 AM
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song
Posts: 6,253
Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005
Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag
|
QUOTE(Hinoema @ Jun 15 2008, 10:23 AM)  1. How many people supporting the Defense actually believe the LM to be fair use as the law stands, as opposed to believing the law needs to be changed to make it so? Well, I'd say Wu, Lessig and Falzone all believe the law needs to be expanded and have ignored what the law really says. Lizbeth Hasse, who should know better, is a friend of RDR and so probably is just offering moral support. Mr Hammer doesn't care one way or the other, he's just a hired gun.QUOTE 2. Who or what is the HP Lexicon (site)? Is it an identifiable entity capable of holding a copyright? I have tried to look up the Hogwarts Timeline at the Copyright Office, but I can't find anything. I don't really know what HPL is. Is it a legal entity? What with the domain, at the time, registered and hosted by MA and TLC; and SVA as webmaster and each author retaining copyright and each essay and artwork there by permission of the creator/copyright holder, it's hard to say what is "original" about the HPL. And this is what the Copyright Office says about copyrighting an online work:
QUOTE(Copyright Office) For all online works other than computer programs and databases, the registration extends only to the copyrightable content of the work as received in the Copyright Office and identified as the subject of the claim. The application for registration should exclude any material that has been previously registered or published or that is in the public domain. For published works, the registration should be limited to the content of the work asserted to be published on the date given on the application.
Many works transmitted online are revised or updated frequently. For individual works, however, there is no blanket registration available to cover revisions published on multiple dates. A revised version for each daily revision may be registered separately, provided the revisions constitute copyrightable authorship. A separate application filing fee would be required for each separately published update. So, in order to copyright the HPL or the Timeline, SVA and the Lexicon staff would have to separate all of JKR's stuff from the work before applying. Fair use does allow some quotation from previously registered material, but the HPL doesn't properly cite or quote and SVA was evasive about what was original and what was JKR's.If the Lexicon book is ruled "unfair use", then the Hogwarts Timeline will be unfair as well and any claim by SVA will be dead in the water. And any arguments that SVA could make that they used his Timeline unfairly would be ironic since he posted all that material to the internet to be used and referred to. Proving that WB used it to write the odd date here or there isn't going to make the case that they stole the whole thing.QUOTE 3. How much of the actual LM was written solely by SVA, as opposed to Lisa or other LM volunteers? Well, I think SVA guesstimated how much he wrote. But I think he put his contribution at 50 to 60% because he needed to claim authorship. I don't think his contribution is that high. Subtract JKR's work and divvy up those items where the other coauthors have been listed and SVA becomes a minority stakeholder. It's no wonder that he referred to himself as an editor rather than an author most of the time.
QUOTE 4.How is this justifiable? Do as I say, not as I do. That's the irony. Those who claim to be protecting the rights of fans are actually undermining those rights. Things would be chaotic in the aftermath of an RDR victory.
I half suspect that the HPL was allowed to exist because it was ad free and under the protection of TLC. One has only to go to the HPL's page of sources and links to see that many similar sites were shut down for copyright infringement in 2001 and 2002. HPL still carries the dead links. By arguing that it was strictly a non-profit hobby site with no ad revenue and no plans to publish, SVA and company set the terms by which they were allowed to continue to exist. And by expressing the idea that the HPL existed only to serve fans and JKR/WB, it was SVA who gave implied consent to the use of HPL's material to EA, WB, JKR, Scholastic and Bloomsbury.
ETA: SIP, Methuen is unaffected if they can claim they never had a contract with RDR. And that's something fishy given the fact that they keep assuming they'll be publishing the book should RDR win.
Methuen would not be publishing the Lexicon MS, as we know it, but some new work that rewrites it in such a way as to meet fair use. Methuen has already taken up the series of HP books that RDR had hoped to publish, so I don't see why they'd miss a chance at an A-Z guide.
I don't think you can ever have declared bankruptcy. I know friends who filed and were being offered loans and credit cards within weeks of doing it. Indeed, their credit rating went up!
RDR could file chapter 7 or 11, depending on how much the fine comes to. If he's hit with a huge fine, he can actually keep going as he is. How curious! If not, he can shed all those books in a liquidation sale and form a new company. Perhaps his wife could buy the old inventory. And then RDR can start again.
Recall that RDR didn't have much of a credit rating in the first place and was relying on Methuen to finance his printing of the Lexicon book. So, I don't know that I'd be too worried about RDR's financing.
Conspiracy? Well, it's Methuen's involvement that's mysterious. RDR spoke with Peter Tummons before he met with SVA. Methuen offered to finance the printing. Methuen actually had a pub date that was three weeks prior to RDR's. And Methuen seemed to be cooperating with WB/JKR from the start of the lawsuit ~and yet mysteriously didn't have any signed contract despite having invested money and labour in the book.
If it's not a clever shell game, I doesn't make any sense. Methuen definitely comes out the winner no matter what happens, while SVA/RDR are the losers whatever happens.
This post has been edited by davidenglish: Jun 15 2008, 12:09 PM
--------------------
Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter,
Sweeter than spring-water,
"Gods, I am so happy!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2008, 12:31 PM
|
LC Secret Agent 07
Posts: 448
Joined: 11:22am March 28, 2007
|
Now that my last onerous mission for “M” is over I can get back to Fair Use. These seem to be the important underlying reasons for fair use and none of them apply to the LM:
1. Fair use or dealing was the direct result of the English Enlightenment’s concerns with reason, the free exchange of ideas, as well as the development of science, and universal and individual justice and rights.
2. Fair use or dealing was meant to break with the medieval and authoritarian state practise of monopoly over all published works.
3. Fair use and dealing sought to strike a balance between the author and the public’s needs within an Enlightenment context, which included the rights of the individual author and the greater good.
All these principles underlie the US Courts’ decisions to this day. So, for example, in section 7; Campbell v Acuff-Rose:
http://www.opengavel.com/opinions/1994/F/0...-03070001.html:
“In copyright cases brought under the Statute of Anne of 1710, English courts held that in some instances “fair abridgements” would not infringe an author’s rights, see W. Patry, The Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law 6-17 (1985) (hereinafter Patry); Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1105 (1990) (hereinafter Leval), and although the First Congress enacted our initial copyright statute, Act of May 31, 1790, 1 Stat. 124, without any explicit reference to “fair use,” as it later came to be known, the doctrine was recognized by the American courts nonetheless.”
The Court goes on to say the onus is on the defendant to show it’s fair (section 29; and note 21):
29 "Since fair use is an affirmative defense, its proponent would have difficulty carrying the burden of demonstrating fair use without favourable evidence about relevant markets. (21)"
And, the Court refines it further:
n.21 "Even favourable evidence, without more, is no guarantee of fairness. Judge Leval gives the example of the film producer’s appropriation of a composer’s previously unknown song that turns the song into a commercial success; the boon to the song does not make the film’s simple copying fair. Leval 1124, n. 84."
This is important to bear in mind when those who support RDR and SVA’s position attempt to make the case that the Lexicon site aided in the HP series’ success. The Supreme Court’s position amounts to: we don’t care; this kind of copying is still unfair.
And in Harper & Row v Nation (1985) the Supreme Court refers back to another ruling that was also far clearer about what constitutes fair (section 13): http://www.opengavel.com/opinions/1985/F/0...0-05200001.html
“As early as 1841, Justice Story, gave judicial recognition to the doctrine in a case that concerned the letters of another former President, George Washington.”
“[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.” Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, 344-345 (No. 4,901) (CC Mass.).
Those were the days when pirates could be hung, drawn, and quartered of course. One cannot help but get the odd Filch-ian pang that the old practises are no longer applied. None of this internet stuff, down to the local park for the afternoon’s entertainment, and no need for horror flics either. Ah, those were the days.
Embittered reminiscences aside, the court’s idea of what constitutes fair is also rather sweet and Hillel-like (Harper n.3):
Professor Nimmer notes, [perhaps] no more precise guide can be stated than Joseph McDonald’s clever paraphrase of the Golden Rule: Take not from others to such an extent and in such a manner that you would be resentful if they so took from you.” 3 Nimmer §13.05[A], at 13-66, quoting McDonald, Non-infringing Uses, 9 Bull. Copyright Soc. 466, 467 (1962).
Now this may ring a bell with those of you who remember Cendali pointing out to SVA he had “sicked” someone for pinching his work off the Lexicon site (Tr. p.312; 7). What was good for the goose should also, according to the courts, apply to the gander. Only the granting of fair use exception would excuse this double standard.
That in turn ties into why this fair use stuff matters to the greater good. They even go back to the Constitution (Harper Row section 12):
“[The] author’s consent to a reasonable use of his copyrighted works ha[d] always been implied by the courts as a necessary incident of the constitutional policy of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, since a prohibition of such use would inhibit subsequent writers from attempting to improve upon prior works and thus … frustrate the very ends sought to be attained.” Ball 260.
In other words fair use is a careful balancing adjunct to this bit of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 8):
“To promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Meaning that the balance was there to encourage the development of the sciences and the arts, not to encourage copyright infringement. In Campbell section 10 the Supreme Court put it this way:
“ … the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright, see, e.g., Sony, supra, at 478-480 (Blackmun, J., dissenting), and the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.”
And the decision as to what was fair was left to the “reasonable” author as in the cases below referring to both published and unpublished works (Harper Row 14):
“Perhaps because the fair use doctrine was predicated on the author’s implied consent to “reasonable and customary” use when he released his work for public consumption, fair use traditionally was not recognized as a defence to charges of copying from an author’s as yet unpublished works.”
And section 12:
“Professor Latman, in a study of the doctrine of fair use commissioned by Congress for the revision effort, see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S., at 462-463, n. 9 (dissenting opinion), summarized prior law as turning on the “importance of material copied or performed from the point of view of the reasonable copyright owner. In other words, would the reasonable copyright owner have consented to the use?” Latman 15. (3)
Here again we have the Enlightenment concern with striking a balance between the rights of the author and the public within the context of promoting and encouraging the arts and sciences. Fair use reflects another aspect of the copyright act’s desire to protect the author whilst not giving them a monopoly, a feature of medieval and authoritarian rule that these enlightenment-based legal precedents were determined to address. The original laws did it in two ways:
a) the author’s copyright was time-limited, an inherently anti-monopolistic criterion.
b) a ‘reasonable’ author (typically enlightenment terminology) would expect ‘his’ works to be made available to the public by others for the purposes of fair criticism, education (read enlightenment), or as a basis upon which the original work might be improved.
As we have seen the Supreme Court has recently distilled these criteria down to whether the disputed fair use work under consideration criticises, comments or reports upon, exposes, parodies, educates, researches or is scholarly to a standard that both satisfies the court and convinces it to be sufficiently in the public interest to allow. The connection to the enlightenment goals of furthering knowledge by encouraging individual authors in tandem with public welfare has remained consistent to this day.
And this is where the LM comes in because it upsets the balance the courts and the law have attempted for over 300 years to maintain. The vast majority of authors do not attain Jo Rowling’s extraordinary success. They need protecting and rewarding and to allow the LM would expose these authors to persistent attempts at wholesale theft of their original works. Permitting the LM would go against the very essence of the legislation’s goals and undermines the whole point of fair use itself. The balance is clear: a limited conditional monopoly to the author, which motivates, incentivizes, and encourages original thinkers whilst enabling the public and other authors access to the original works as well as offering scope to enlighten and develop the original further. The LM does none of these things, despite being a useful tool, it clearly falls within the author’s derivative ambit. By affirming the LM lies within that derivative sphere the equitable balance, between the author and public’s rights that fair use allows, will be maintained.
Profuse apologies SIP I obviously came into contact with some magic mushroom whilst researching post 303 part 14, the consequence of which is my sense of what is possible or humorous has become blurred. Despite that I see no reason in law to prevent RDR finding an alternative publisher should his company RDR not be able to provide him with the fast-book outlet he needs to get the job of knocking out his best-seller within two weeks done. I see nothing legally or morally wrong with such a project, rather I think it offers the world yet another opportunity to admire RDR (the person)’s immense resourcefulness and pop-it-out in a jiffy appeal.
ETA SIP just to reiterate, the book I expect RDR to write is the "Vanquishing Voldemort" one, not the LM or a derivative.
Hinoema. SVA, by his own account, wrote 60% of the LM see Tr. day 2, p298; 6-10.
copier beware.
This post has been edited by NickTLC: Jun 22 2008, 08:21 AM
Reason for edit: Edited citation at author's request
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2008, 02:21 PM
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher
Posts: 198
Joined: 9:47am April 18, 2005
Location: Snape's Army
|
QUOTE(DE) I don't think you can ever have declared bankruptcy. I know friends who filed and were being offered loans and credit cards within weeks of doing it. Indeed, their credit rating went up!
RDR could file chapter 7 or 11, depending on how much the fine comes to. If he's hit with a huge fine, he can actually keep going as he is. How curious! If not, he can shed all those books in a liquidation sale and form a new company. Perhaps his wife could buy the old inventory. And then RDR can start again.
Recall that RDR didn't have much of a credit rating in the first place and was relying on Methuen to finance his printing of the Lexicon book. So, I don't know that I'd be too worried about RDR's financing.
Conspiracy? Well, it's Methuen's involvement that's mysterious. RDR spoke with Peter Tummons before he met with SVA. Methuen offered to finance the printing. Methuen actually had a pub date that was three weeks prior to RDR's. And Methuen seemed to be cooperating with WB/JKR from the start of the lawsuit ~and yet mysteriously didn't have any signed contract despite having invested money and labour in the book.
If it's not a clever shell game, I doesn't make any sense. Methuen definitely comes out the winner no matter what happens, while SVA/RDR are the losers whatever happens.
DE: I'm not sure how much you actually know about Bankruptcy and how it works, but again, this is a very public matter so this "shell game" will have a flock of attorneys watching it on all sides.
Incredible string of accusations, though.
SVA and RDR could win, and then they wouldn't be losers. You keep forgetting that option.
No one really knows what "deal" Methuen has. Extrapolating out from that has nothing to do with the trial at hand. This is all just armchair speculation.
--------------------
“I don’t see what there is to fuss about, Igor.” ~Severus Snape
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2008, 03:46 PM
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song
Posts: 6,253
Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005
Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag
|
I'm not sure I'd call it a string of accusations, SIP. It's more a curious observation with speculations as to what may explain it. We have Methuen, who was advising RDR from the beginning. Methuen was to lend RDR $10,000 to print the book. Methuen had a November 5th pub date. According to Elanor, Methuen had already "anglicized" and typeset its version of the book ~she said someone had already printed copies, but said it was the French publisher. We then learn at the trial that Methuen never did sign a contract with RDR or pay RDR. Meanwhile, Methuen still sets a date for the release of the Lexicon book ~something RDR can't do~ and hopes to have the book out by the release of HBP. SVA says he's signed with Methuen to do a series of HP books; it's not clear from his testimony if he's for RDR or against RDR.
It's difficult to see how RDR or SVA can count a win as a success. RDR reported at the beginning of the trial that he'd already spent over a hundred thousand in legal fees. I don't know how much would be covered by The Right to Write Fund, but the recent death of Steward R Mott won't be welcome news. And the trial was bound to cost a mint. SVA is now living in one of the most expensive cities in the world where a parking space costs as much as a house in Cutlerville, MI. And he too now has legal bills and creditors.
It's true. RDR might write the book about how he took on JKR and WB and....won or lost. He could certainly tell a tall tale of the backroom stuff and how HP fandom conspired to destroy free speech. But would it sell and who would print it? Methuen??? Methuen published his book on Michael Moore. Who knows? But there's something very fishy about Methuen's involvement. And, if SVA's In Search of Harry Potter book is based on the Lexicon, the RDR/Methuen connection becomes stranger still. After all, weren't SVA/RDR planning this series of Lexicon related books? And now it's only Methuen. Or is it?
--------------------
Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter,
Sweeter than spring-water,
"Gods, I am so happy!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2008, 04:07 PM
|
Monster Book Stacker
Posts: 378
Joined: 6:35pm April 4, 2008
|
QUOTE(davidenglish @ Jun 15 2008, 04:46 PM) It's difficult to see how RDR or SVA can count a win as a success. RDR reported at the beginning of the trial that he'd already spent over a hundred thousand in legal fees. I don't know how much would be covered by The Right to Write Fund, but the recent death of Steward R Mott won't be welcome news. And the trial was bound to cost a mint. SVA is now living in one of the most expensive cities in the world where a parking space costs as much as a house in Cutlerville, MI. And he too now has legal bills and creditors.
Bolding mine.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned here before but I have just read that Roger Rapport is President of "The Right to Write
Fund".
Taken from their website and content reduced:
QUOTE Right to Write Mission Statement and Board of Advisors
Posted by roger rapoport on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 09:19
RIGHT TO WRITE FUND
A Program of the Center for Ethics in Action
2008 Mission Statement
The Right to Write Fund is formed to be an educational repository and clearinghouse for the 21st century freedom of expression and “fair use” issues writers and publishers encounter when moving between the worlds of print, internet, film, the fine arts and new media. The Fund will collect and disseminate legal briefs, facts and analyses as well as literary and media accounts of copyright, trademark and other intellectual property statutes in order to define first amendment rights in a technological age. The Fund will promulgate and protect the democratic values of our founding fathers – free speech, the freedom to write, fairness, openness and honesty – while establishing the ground rules for future artistic expression.
Goals
1. To raise money for a Right to Write Defense Fund to cover legal expenses in the J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. injunction and other possible legal actions against RDR Books.
2. To use additional funds raised to create a Right to Write clearinghouse and provide future resources for the Mission stated above.
Board of Advisors
Anthony Falzone is the Executive Director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford Law School. An intellectual property litigator, he has advised and defended writers, publishers, filmmakers, musicians and video game makers on copyright, trademark, rights of publicity and other intellectual property matters. Prior to his work at Stanford, he was a litigation partner in the San Francisco office of Bingham McCutchen. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School.
Lizbeth Hasse , a graduate of the University of California’s Boalt Hall School of Law and a Fulbright Scholar, represents publishers, authors, print, film, and web journalists, musicians, directors and broadcasters at Creative Industry Law Group in San Francisco. Hasse has advised on legislative developments in intellectual property, media law and constitutional areas in a number of European, Asian and African “countries in transition.”
President: Roger D. Rapoport , is Publisher of RDR Books as well as the author and editor of 17 books including the biography Citizen Moore.
Curiouser and curiouser
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2008, 04:13 AM
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary
Posts: 478
Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005
|
Weird One- what's odd about that is that I'm sure at the moment the funds from the Right to Write are going solely toward the lawsuit expenses. Once that's over, if there's anything left, they say they will fulfill the stated purpose. But will they?
That makes me wonder about a few things. How ethical is it to found a nonprofit organization to pay for the damages incurred by what may well be judged to be an illegal activity? How ethical is it to justify the status of this nonprofit with a fine sounding purpose which any sensible person knows is likely to never be realized? RDR has already said there are six figure legal expenses, never mind any potential damages. Only a fool would think any 'additional funds' would be left over.
Also, Rapoport, Falzone and Hasse are the president and advisers, respectively. How ethical is it to form a nonprofit for the purpose of collecting money for debts incurred by the non profit's President, monies paid to the non profit's advisers? How ethical is it that a nonprofit organization be used for what basically amounts to a whip-round to pay RDR's legal expenses, especially if the work in question is judged to be in violation of copyright laws?
Add these to my list of questions LM supporters ignore.
David- I don't think the Lexicon site is a legal entity either. I also haven't been able to find a single copyright registered to it or to SVA. And yes, I also find it highly irregular that Meuthen would advance monies toward and have access to a product they had signed no contract for.
This post has been edited by Hinoema: Jun 16 2008, 07:34 AM
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2008, 05:32 AM
|
Owner of D's Favorite Avatar!
Posts: 3,048
Joined: 10:59am June 8, 2005
Location: Exile on Main St
|
QUOTE(Hinoema @ Jun 16 2008, 10:13 AM) David- I don't think the Lexicon site is a legal entity either. I also haven't been able to find a single copyright registered to it or to SVA. And yes, I also find it highly irregular that Meuthen would advance monies toward and have access to a product they had signed no contract for.
Yes, it is rather curious at how much access they've had to it, despite not having a contract with RDR. It be interesting to see, if any more light will be shed on it, after the ruling has been made.
--------------------
"If Homer Simpson wants his son to work in a Burlesque House, then Homer Simpson's son will work in a burlesque house!" ...(Marge appears) "Now Marge, you're going to hear a LOT of crazy talk about Bart working in a Burlesque House..." |
|
|
|
  Similar Topics
 Similar Topics
| |
|
Topic Title |
Replies |
Topic Starter |
Views |
Last Action |
 |
|
| |
