RDR Books, which I presume is named after owner Roger Rapoport, is the publisher who wants to print the book version of the HP Lexicon. RDR Books is a tiny publishing house from Muskegon, MI, a stone's throw from where Steve Vander Ark was living. RDR apparently grossed about $100K last year, which would make it a very small press indeed.

Although it seems Rapoport read a story about the Lexicon in August and approached SVA about a book, Steve has said recently that he had been trying to discuss a book version of the HPL with WB/JKR as early as the spring of this year. Why he would sign with a tiny press that couldn't even afford to pay him an advance on royalties is a mystery.

The American doctrine of Fair Use (and the Commonwealth concept of Fair Dealing to a lesser extent) does allow books of academic criticism and scholarly review. The website contains far too much directly quoted and paraphrased material, as well as trademarked images, to pass a test of Fair Use. However, the proposed book is not the website "verbatim" as RDR initially claimed, but only about a third of the website's material.

So, the big question we're waiting to see resolved is whether the abridged and expurgated manuscript that RDR handed over to WB/JKR manages to meet the definition of Fair Use. Will WB/JKR object to it entirely? Will they merely object to parts of it and suggest changes? It'll all be clearer in five weeks time.

Of course, Roger Rapoport might be crazy like a fox. The lawsuit certainly garnered more publicity than he could ever have hoped to generate by normal PR. The downside is that he has to succeed or he faces financial ruin. WB/JKR have said they aren't interested in a monetary award, but RDR has sold foreign rights to Britain, Canada, France and Australia. And those publishers aren't likely to be so generous to Mr Rapoport for getting them into this fix.

And, sadly, each player in this tragicomedy has their own vested interest. Rapoport's is different from SVA's, JKR's from WB's, and Stanford's FUP's interest is different from RDR's. And, of course, Fandom has divided on the issue and is worried about the future of fansites. It's a terrible mess and one wishes SVA had talked more openly about it to his friends and colleagues in Fandom before he signed a contract. This business just gives the impression of SVA as being something of a loner and outside of the mainstream fandom, which comes as a surprise to many.

Nice summary, davidenglish. You're right that RDR may be banking on the court case acting as free publicity, but as you mentioned earlier, if they manage to prove that the book does not infringe copyright, they'll probably also be proving that the $25 book is not quite as useful a tool as the free website, which may decrease their customer base. It's a double edged sword Rapoport is playing with, and I hope he knows how to use it more skillfully than we suspect, or he and all his employees may be facing some serious financial consequences.

Well, my impression is that all the to-ing and fro-ing this month will be private or, as lawyers like to say, in camera. Which is just fancy Latin talk for "behind closed doors". This is what, I think, is called "discovery" in criminal cases. This is a civil case and so we're only likely to hear what RDR or WB/JKR are going to tell us.

I'm rather hoping to hear RDR thump his chest and declare that WB/JKR's charges are outrageous and groundless and that he's "not yet begun to fight".

Of course, the selling point is the title of the book. I don't think SVA's name is enough to sell something.

If it was an initial 5000 copy print run, I'd guess the purpose was to gauge sales and finance a larger print run. RDR keeps claiming to have limited resources. Perhaps they planned for initial sales revenue to fund the follow-up printing costs.

Until the publicity of this lawsuit, SVA's name was not as well known as The Lexicon itself. He has certainly reaped the benefits of free publicity here. This does make him a little more marketable for later books (SVA and the Chamber of Legalities?). I'm waiting to see who bears the financial burden if RDR loses. RDR or SVA? From SVA's postings, I'm betting it's RDR.

Phew! I've wandered off topic. But my point --and I do have one-- is that Fair Use cannot be used as an excuse to beggar the artist. Jo may be rich, but she's an exception. Most artists are not rich. And if the doctrine of Fair Use becomes so broad that no artist has any hope of writing sequels or licensing derivative works, culture will be as free as a bunch of crabs in a bucket.

Reading through the comments to Lessig's tour de farce, I was struck by the attitude that artists and musicians don't do it for the money, they do it for the "art". LOL. In other words, a bunch of tenured pedants with secure incomes who force students to pay huge tuitions to sit through boring lectures in order to get a piece of paper they can flog on the job market think creative individuals should beg for their supper while the pedants comment on the quality of their begging.

I've said dozens of times that I love the Lexicon. I do. I think it's a wonderfully put together resource. But it's not the real thing. Jo wants to finish this up herself, and since she started it all, she should be the one to see it through.