Not getting to publish a book absolutely pales in comparison to what you go through when you lose a friend - at least, that's how I feel.

That a career problem is nothing next to losing a friend

Yes, you are calling him a liar. And me. Denying that you have said something does not change the fact that it's right there in black and white. Although this does go some way to explaining your completely over the top reaction to Tim Wu's article.

That and presumably because it would have been difficult to extricate himself from the contract.

No, roonwit, Elanor explained SVA for moral reasons had no interest in breaking his contract. He was committed on all levels to fulfilling it.

Can someone tell me what LJ is and give me a link? (assume LexiconJournal?)

This has been said before: it is dangerous to want your cake and to eat it too. To go ahead with this book was to effectively break with JKR, the Floo Network, TLC, and a large chunk of fandom. This has been done, as I understand it, as a matter of principle on the part of SVA, i.e. he had a legal and moral right to publish the LM but was prepared to make some changes to accomodate JKR.

In copyright law there is also a provision about paying the appropriate price for derivative works. I just wonder whether SVA really thought this one through, particularly in terms of the real price that will have to be paid whether or not the LM is finally published. From what Elanor Isolda has said in previous posts he did not. The trouble is if the LM is published in its current form it will only make things worse.

The best outcome for all is for RDR to lose this case, write his blockbuster on how he no doubt "Vanquished Voldemort" and SVA can get on with his Methuen HP-related series of books. As I've said before my feeling is this is pretty much how it will pan out in the end.

chiara515, I wish I could say the speeding ticket analogy was relevant but it is most certainly not. In the advent of modern technology (speeding cameras), it is more than possible to catch every speedster and prosecute him. It is possible catch people who are downloading music or books instead of paying for them too. But it is not possible to supervise the purchaser of every book to ensure that he is not scanning it or copying parts of it (e.g. if he needs a larger resolution for his personal use). And even if you did, you could not seriously prosecute him unless he was distributing it to others--which common sense dictates is indeed illegal. This is why there are people known as Judges who show "discretion" according to whatever cases are placed before them. This is part of why certain parts of the copyright law needs to be adjusted somewhat. If a judge can say that the law is murky, who are we to insist that it is perfectly clear and does not require "discretion"?

Furthermore, as someone who has lost people in road accidents, I strongly believe that you are trivializing the matter of speeding (and by extension other traffic violations such as drinking and driving). Lives have been lost from speeding; the consequences are far graver for the populace than me scanning/photocopying a chapter from a book I bought: i.e paid for with my own money. Quite frankly, I find the comparison rather ludicrous.

Finally, you are right about the fact that this has nothing to do with the issue at hand (the Lexicon copyright case). Whether Mr. VA took the information from the scanned copies or the original books, it is still copyrighted material which needs to be cited properly. Mr. VA answered the question truthfully under oath about owning scans from the books, which he said he used during his research for the Lexicon website (and presumably the book as well). Presumably the scans were made for the benefit of the Lexicon staff who were compiling the information for the website and transferred between themselves? I do not know the answer to this and there is no proof that he was distributing it to other people for free or for profit. If there is conclusive proof that he did so, I am sure there will be repercussions. But I do not like spreading falsehoods so I refrain from making categorical remarks about people and things I don't know.

As a researcher who has scanned & photocopied parts of my own personal copies of other books (not the HP books because I didn't quote enough from them to require scanning), I cannot throw stones at Mr. VA (remember Christ's admonition? Let he that is without sin...). It would be profoundly hypocritical of me or of many a researcher I know to condemn Mr. VA for scanning something from a book for personal use. That is not to say that I do not accept that the law exists or that I condone illegal downloading or uploading (totally different issue in my opinion): I am saying the law forbidding people from copying or scanning parts of books they own for their own personal use is impractical and unreasonable for a number of reasons.

And I will continue to say so.

You have the right to differ; but let's not keep flogging a dead horse and coming up with even more ludicrous scenarios and offensive comparisons.

This is part of the equation that I will never understand. Why does going ahead with a book equate with breaking with JKR etc etc etc? The vast majority of fans have no real understanding of the issues involved in the case. Look at the comments from Leaky News reports and that notion is clearly confirmed. Comments such as "poor Jo," and "How awful for her," proliferate the plethora of responses from the masses.