WB/JKR vs RDR Part 18 |
 Dec 18 2008, 09:51 PM
Post
#361
|
|
Claw-Clipping Kneazles at the Magical Menegerie  Posts: 2,452 Joined: 9:26am July 24, 2007 Location: I'm either in the Muggle Underground Forum or at the Hogwarts Express Roundhouse   |
QUOTE(theredwitch @ Dec 18 2008, 07:36 PM)  Besides, I never expected everyone to agree that the book was Fair Use and I don't even care if they don't, what I thought was horrible was the way people turned on SVA like a pack of pit bulls on a hapless rabbit. Just because he had offended JKR. Did she really think his life should be ruined for writing the book? I'd say no but I could be wrong. Here's my take: RDR, in being SVAs publisher, could have approached CLLA with a work in progress, and asked "what does it take to bring this in line?" Neal Blair's answer would have been one of: - Go for it and publish. - More added value, more and proper citation, less quoting without citation. - Not her words, please. At that point, RDR and SVA would have had a viable framework to go from. Cost? They miss the DH train, but are easily in line for what should have been this falls HBP release. Alternately, they have the chance to tie into Beedle's release, since we had some weeks notice of that. Instead, as I understand the story, RDR proceeds towards publication. CLLA gets wind, and lawyer letters commence. No response. JKR/WB file for injunction. RDR digs heels in sand, and turns on the meter for his lawyers. If you googleimage "The Last Great Act of Defiance," you get what I perceive to be RDR/SFUP's position (and by extension, SVA) vis a vis the Brothers Warner and Ms Rowling. Yes, people get upset when you dig heels in on a common-sense concept. They get more upset when digging in feeds the money meter. To make matters worse, RDR loses at trial. Folks, it's time to cut the losses. I certainly didn't see that happening, I saw someone "talking a talk" ... not "walking the walk." Making the relatively easy very difficult tends to rile people. Now, as a point of clarity: The manuscript as recorded into evidence is academically shoddy. Miss Harper and Dr Oglesby, two historians who taught me long ago, bashed a simple concept into my brain: Cite it! OK, so there are multiple editions in multiple languages. That's one thing an annotated bibliography can be used for. An author can cite not only a work, but when it exists in multiple editions, he can cite THE WORK. With citations, the work becomes the first mark on the wall for literary scholars downline in time. Without it, as I said earlier, the work is good for folks writing "Trivial Pursuit" question cards. I live in a world of detail. Many times, I don't want the big picture, I want the the relationships between details. What's the end result: A year of lost time. Lost resources for all parties (money and creative time). A book that is no longer riding the ninth wave, but instead is out in open water ... and with a worldwide recession building, its on-sale date doesn't provide for an initial rush of purchases. Ms redwitch, the parties made their beds, especially the defendants. Now, they get to sleep in them. ETA: "And yes, Regis, that is my final answer." This post has been edited by JohannMdlAmerica: Dec 18 2008, 09:54 PM -------------------- The last enemy to be destroyed is death-- First Corinthians, Chapter 15, Verse 26 The epitaph of James and Lily Potter |
 |
 
 
|
|
Dec 18 2008, 11:27 PM
Post
#362
|
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song Posts: 6,605 Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005 Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag  |
QUOTE(Fragesteller @ Dec 18 2008, 11:04 PM) The legal question that I find most interesting--and as yet unresolved--is that of just how many story details and plot points may legitimately be used in a "ready reference" while still claiming fair-use status. This is completely aside from copying of original language, phrases, excessive paraphrasing, and so on, which is clearly not allowed beyond a certain relatively low percentage. I'm referring to the types of things that are more in the nature of "full list of names, birth dates, and genealogy of all members of the Black family," "synopsis of all key events in Chap. xx of HPOOP," "complete summary of Olivander's actions throughout the seven-volume series," etc. There has to be an upper limit since eventually you would end up reproducing and cataloging every single event of every single book, and that would surely be derivative. However, there is still quite a lot of gray area that never had to be examined since the LM was so blatantly infringing. It is most interesting, Fragesteller. Several legal experts wanted to see an appeal because they didn't understand how Judge Patterson could say the enjoined Lexicon was a secondary work and then find it failing all four factors of the fair use test.Prof Bambauer and others felt that anything so comprehensive as an encyclopedia, lexicon, or compendium would have to be a derivative work and therefore need the permisson of the copyright holder. In truth, such works are useful but not necessary to teaching, research and scholarship. My own opinion is that Judge Patterson declared the Lexicon to have the good intention of being a secondary work to give Stanford something they could crow about and save face. There was no doubt about the fact that Stanford wasn't advising their client properly and had their own agenda. As I've said, this is not a binding precedent. Judges may refer to it, but they don't have to agree with it. And as for the "something completely different" Lexicon, it has already said it won't contain anything from JKR's schoolbooks. And we hope that it has eliminated the excessive quotation and close paraphrasing while properly marking and citing those it retains. Pleione, I have used the Lexicon website myself. Personally, I don't see what the need is for a print edition. Indeed, most reference tools like the Lexicon are moving online and dropping their print editions. I can't imagine there was any reason to publish it except to make money; and that too works against a fair use argument. theredwitch, I certainly understand that SVA's most ardent supporters have been disgusted with this thread and with me in particular. (SIP has actually taken to using my name as a tag on her posts.) But during the first week of November 2007 most sentiment was on SVA's side. JKR was called all manner of foul names. And I did an analysis of the first forum of this thread and found that pro, con and neutral were about equal with the pro-Lexicon group actually in the lead. My own first post was neutral. Why people "turned" on SVA was because he was telling several versions of the "truth", both publicly and privately. Despite the outrage over Melissa's email finding its way into the Plaintiffs' hands, that email revealed a man who was living a double life. Indeed, it is sometimes hard to figure out what it is that SVA thinks or believes or where he wants to take this thing. He went from telling Ansible that JKR was pulling a huge power grab to weeping on the stand before his idol. It was surreal. What is more amazing to me is that there are many supporters who feel it can all be forgotten now; that somehow fandom will heal and go back to where it was Oct 31, 2007. It can't. There are people on the Leaky Lounge who put in hours and hours of uncredited work updating the Lexicon; they did it for the love of Harry. They did not do it to enrich SVA. And I'm still waiting to here if John, Lisa and Bel are getting a percentage of the royalties. There are only a few more hours to this thread. And the concept of fair use still seems so elusive. I suppose it can be compared to tax avoidance. An accountant will tell you that tax avoidance is perfectly legal, but that tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance involves working within the tax code to minimize the tax payable. Whereas tax evasion is blatant fraud. The infringing Lexicon could have existed only if JKR gave permission. A different kind of Lexicon could have been written had SVA or RDR consulted a copyright expert. They didn't; and I'm of the opinion that the so-called expert RDR claimed he consulted to SVA in August is probably a Muskegon legend. (Apparently, along the shores of Lake Michigan, blood-sucking mosquitoes can swarm and take the shape of an IP attorney on the hottest day of the year.) What we've also learned is that there are many, many companion books out there that are perfectly legal. They were written either with permission or with a clear understanding of what constitutes fair use. It annoys me that SVA never sought permission or advice directly from JKR's agency. That was shameful. And then, despite his training, he claimed not to know much about copyright or fair use and chirrups about the trial and opinion of the judge as if this were some private tutorial on fair use and that SVA has done a service to other critics wishing to follow in his footsteps. Hahaha. I'd say his is more a cautionary tale of what NOT to do. It's been grand. -------------------- Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter, Sweeter than spring-water, "Gods, I am so happy!" |
|
|
|
|
Dec 19 2008, 01:05 AM
Post
#363
|
|
|
Professional Diagon Alley Window Shopper Posts: 64 Joined: 7:50pm February 22, 2008 |
This entire saga has had enough elements of the bizarre and unreal to merit retelling as, perhaps, a cautionary fable in "Modern Tales in the Tradition of Beedle the Bard." I would love to read Prof. Dumbledore's analysis of the moral of the fable...
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 19 2008, 03:06 AM
Post
#364
|
|
Knight Bus Driver in Training Posts: 558 Joined: 6:48am March 9, 2005 Location: Looking for a bookshop in Knockturn Alley |
QUOTE(Fragesteller @ Dec 19 2008, 12:05 PM) This entire saga has had enough elements of the bizarre and unreal to merit retelling Agreed. But I am quite willing to wait a bit before hearing it retold. My ears are still ringing from the original version ... QUOTE(Fragesteller @ Dec 19 2008, 12:05 PM) I would love to read Prof. Dumbledore's analysis of the moral of the fable... As he read Pope, maybe he read Shakespeare too, and maybe he would quote him: "a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing"? This post has been edited by hck: Dec 19 2008, 04:09 AM -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Dec 19 2008, 05:03 AM
Post
#365
|
|
Eeylops Owl Cage Cleaner Posts: 234 Joined: 9:47am April 18, 2005 Location: Snape's Army |
I'm sure I won't have the last word, and I'm absolutely sure that this debate will continue in Fandom, possibly till the end of time, but thanks to the thread regulars for a wild time.
"All things must change to something new, to something strange." ~Henry Wadsworth Longfellow "'Tis strange -- but true. For truth is always strange; stranger than fiction." ~Lord Byron Enjoy your holidays! This post has been edited by Silver Ink Pot: Dec 19 2008, 05:08 AM -------------------- “I don’t see what there is to fuss about, Igor.” ~Severus Snape |
|
|
|
|
Dec 19 2008, 06:09 AM
Post
#366
|
|
Waiting for Wednesdays  Posts: 9,150 Joined: 7:57am January 28, 2005 Location: Hiding from Hurricanes |
As this matter has concluded itself in the court of law, we're closing this thread. Thanks to everyone for the discussion. Doris -------------------- |
|
|
|
