WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part XII |
 May 4 2008, 09:18 PM
Post
#1
|
|
The Newest Googlebot  Posts: 6,600 Joined: 1:00pm January 4, 2005 Location: Waiting for the G2   |
It's time for another edition of the thread! You guys are quick typists!
We've included all of the related links below for easy access. We'd like to remind everyone to please check over your posts before you hit reply to be sure that you've avoided using sarcasm toward other posters, since it's very hard to discern sarcasm in text. Also to those replying to posts, please try to avoid assuming that a person is being sarcastic toward you, since again, sarcasm is very tricky to discern in text. Thanks everyone! --The Leaky Crew ---------------------------------------- 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 a Chicago Tribune piece here: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/5/3...-of-the-lexicon 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 "The Impact of this suit on Fandom" |
 |
  
 
|
|
May 4 2008, 09:28 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 98 Joined: 11:33pm March 7, 2008 |
Since I think everything should start with a musical number, here's davidenglish's take on the Gershwin's Let's Call The Whole Thing Off
QUOTE And as we near the end of Part XI and the topic of songs, both silly and infringing, has come up, I'll offer up the lyrics of George and
Let's Call the Lawsuit Off Things have come to a murky pass, Our lawsuit is growing flat, For I write this and the other While you rewrite this and that. Goodness knows what the end will be. Oh, I don’t know where I’m at. It looks as if we two will never be one. Something must be done. You say Fair Use and I say Eff Yous. You say your views and I say my views Your views, my views, Fair Use, Eff Yous, Let’s call the lawsuit off. You say Alohamore and I say Alohomore You say Voldemort and I say Voldemore Alohamore, Alohomore, Voldemort, Voldemore, Let’s call the lawsuit off! But oh, if we call the lawsuit off, then we must part. And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart. So if you like Herm-my-oh-nee and I like Herm-own-ninny. I’ll love Hermione and give up the ninny. For we know we need each other so, we Better call the calling off off, Let's call the lawsuit off. This post has been edited by Brigadoon: May 4 2008, 09:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2008, 10:45 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song Posts: 6,605 Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005 Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag  |
I have been asked to relate the parody of George and Ira Gershwin to the lawsuit. (Poor Ira, he's always over looked. I'm sorry I had to cross his name out to replace it with Fred's.)
QUOTE(davidenglish @ May 5 2008, 01:20 AM)  Let's Call the Lawsuit Off Things have come to a murky1 pass, Our lawsuit is growing flat, For I write this and the other While you rewrite this and that2. Goodness knows what the end will be. Oh, I don't know where I'm at. It looks as if we two will never be one. Something must be done.3 1. This is a reference to Judge Patterson's reference to Fair Use as being murky caselaw. 2. This is a play on SVA's plagi-phrasing. JKR writes "This and the other" and SVA paraphrases it as "This and that." 3. Is this verse fair use? I've left it unchanged. (Sorry, Ira.) It just reminded me of the headline "Even a wizard can't predict outcome of 'Potter' case". And I want to apologize. I should have written "You say Sidiki and I say Sikidy", but my mind went blank. So this is probably an example of infringement where I "took too much and did too little". If I hadn't had dishes to do I coulda done something "transformative". I coulda been a contender. QUOTE But oh, if we call the lawsuit off, then we must part. And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart.4 So if you like Herm-my-oh-nee and I like Herm-own-ninny.5 I'll love Hermione and give up the ninny. For we know we need each other so, we Better call the calling off off, Let's call the lawsuit off.6 4. I've only changed one word here. (I'm so lazy. I should have alphabetized it, but I'm really, really lazy.) Still, I thought the verse captured the news headlines of tears on Trial Monday and more tears on Trial Tuesday. And parodied the sentiments of SVA as expressed in the Chicago Tribune and underlines the fact that the trial is the first time, and probably the only time, the two shall ever meet. 5. These pronunciation aids are taken from GoF when Hermione is instructing Viktor Krum. It fits in with Gershwin's lyrics while mocking the Lexicon's etymological discussion and Mr Hammer's troubles with the 'gibberish' of his case. 6. Again, I've only changed two words. But this sums up the predicament of this case. Nobody wants a lawsuit. Authors need fans and fans need books to read. And the "call the calling off off" line certainly speaks to RDR's bad faith and SVA's separate pursuit of the Timeline issue. And, of course, Judge Patterson plea that, with some imagination, this might be settled. And can the lawsuit be settled? Well, only if this was a Hollywood musical. Now, if we dressed Roger Rapoport in a top hat and tails, could we get him to sing, "I just got a cease and desist through the mail"? This post has been edited by davidenglish: May 4 2008, 11:19 PM -------------------- Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter, Sweeter than spring-water, "Gods, I am so happy!" |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 12:14 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary Posts: 498 Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005 |
Can this lawsuit be settled? I'm sure it's possible. What will it be worth, I'm wondering? I don't see much possibility for an equitable outcome, really.
The Plaintiff's goal, to the best of my knowledge, is to obtain an order against publication of the LM. However, thanks to that cancellation clause, time should take care of that even if the court doesn't. The main difference I see between obtaining the injunction (and having the Defense appeal) and not doing so (and the Plaintiffs appealing that) is the potential damages awarded and the potential toward precedent. I assume that the Defense's goal, ostensibly, was to allow RDR to publish the LM; however, afais the presence of that clause made such a goal incredibly unrealistic as soon as the first suit was fired- er, filed. That's why I say ostensibly. I see it also as very possible that each key player had a different goal that had nothing to do with an RDR LM. I can see Stanford overlooking the implosion date for the contract in favor of the potential publicity this will have gotten (and has gotten) the FUP. I can see Steve overlooking it if he already had decided to allow the rights to revert and to go with Meuthen instead. Neither party has anything tangible to lose and potentially a good deal to gain even if the case drags out and fails; FUP gets coverage, and Steve gets publicity and can blame the Plaintiffs for the failure of his contract with RDR, the way he blamed RDR for misleading him into publishing at all. The only one I don't see benefiting from a loss is RDR. However, even if the ruling goes against the Defense and they appeal, maybe he's hoping that the automatic cancellation that will almost inevitably occur during the appeal process will serve as a 'get out of settlement free card', since both the indemnity clause and his right to publish the LM will vanish with the contract. I don't know, I don't speak directly to Steve... however, I assume that of all the people involved, RDR has the most incentive to settle. However, again according to their contract, Steve has to approve a settlement. Would he, if he could hypothetically gain more than he loses even from an RDR loss? This post has been edited by Hinoema: May 5 2008, 12:16 AM -------------------- The Et Al |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 01:01 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Eeylops Owl Cage Cleaner Posts: 234 Joined: 9:47am April 18, 2005 Location: Snape's Army |
Oh my goodness . . .
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/05/12/080512ta_talk_wu *Running Away Now* -------------------- “I don’t see what there is to fuss about, Igor.” ~Severus Snape |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 01:22 AM
Post
#6
|
|
MelvinTLC Posts: 2,691 Joined: 1:57pm January 4, 2005 Location: My happy place |
Well. That's interesting.
About 0.01 percent of our conversation (which was actually very lengthy and substantive and included Mr. Wu telling me that he thought I had turned him around on the case) was used there, and every time Mr. Wu asked me to comment on the ways in which Mr. Vander Ark has hurt me, or to make a judgment on his character, I declined. Apparently I was alone in thinking to insult even a former friend in the press would be a low blow. I also said over and over and over and over and over again that the suit did not end our friendship, but the suit served as an occasion to bring up other reasons for our friendship to end. I said this so many times, to make sure it was clear, that it rang in my skull by the time our conversation was done. That was the most I would say about it; the rest, I told him, was personal and wouldn't comment on it. Mr. Wu called Mr. Vander ark a rogue fan, to me, and he said, "Did you call him that?" I said, "No." He said, "Would you like to?" I said, "No." Can someone please point me to where I said "he's vilified now" on the podcast? I don't recall the words leaving my lips but I could be wrong. For that matter, also, "He has ruined his good standing." If I said anything near that it was quote of what a lawyer or document said; it wasn't my own adjudication. When we spoke it was to be an article on the acutal issues in the case, not one making this weird comparison between Mr. Vander Ark and myself, as if one of us has to be the opposite of the other. The idea is strange, wrong, and insulting. As is the idea that Mr. Vander Ark (apprently repeatedly) likes to promulgate, that I'm some sort of blind obsequiant to Jo's will. That is the very basest of insults. I disagree with him on this case because I am a thinking adult with a thinking brain who came to the conclusion based on the facts of the case. To call any one of us less than that is an insult. Also to imply that any interaction with Jo is "status" - that's just flat-out disgusting. There is no doubt that some fans do equate meeting/touching/talking-with Jo to fandom status, this is very true. But my relationship with Jo is not one Mr. Vander Ark should comment upon, as he knows nothing about it. (Mr. Wu's student reported this hug to him, btw. He brought it up to me on the phone.) For the record, I watched Mr. Vander Ark in every second of that testimony. He looked at Jo precisely once; directly after he cried. And never again. I had my glasses on and could see perfectly. (And wasn't, that day, in the back of the court but in the third row.) Also for the record: Jo has never once, never ONCE, asked us/me to, or implied I/we should, do absolutely ANYthing just because she said so, or speak her words as one would do in a prophet-God relationship (another disgusting and inaccurate metaphor). In fact, she has done quite the opposite: She, during a very rough time for us early in this case, absolutely ENCOURAGED me/us to weigh things properly and come to our own decisions even if it hurt her in the end. I am sorely tempted to detail exactly how but I don't feel such a rude quote by Mr. Vander Ark should be the reason for that. I don't feel it should be the reason for anything. What Mr. Vander Ark does not know (the least of which is that it was I who urged Justia to remove portions of documents that included his social security number, as I felt it unfair to him) outweighs that which he does, and that upon which he has made such terrible statements. It's very sad. -------------------- "I am not big enough to love things the way I do!"
~Edna St. Vincent Millay |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 01:51 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Shopping for a New Firebolt Posts: 836 Joined: 11:35pm February 3, 2006 Location: Harry Potter Heaven  |
Oh, that saddens me. I expected a lot more from The New Yorker of all places.
-------------------- " [Rupert] really has made [Malachy] his own. He's just such a fine film actor. [...] He knows just how much and how little to do - there are wonderful moments of stillness in his performance in Cherrybomb, for all the wildness and energy of the world around him. He's very subtle and expressive." - Daragh Carville, screenwriter of Cherrybomb |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 02:22 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary Posts: 498 Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005 |
Well, al I'm going to say about that last comment by Steve is that it could be seen as potentially slanderous as well as vindictive. Also, unless the New Yorker can verify those suppsoed quotes, especially the "As for Vander Ark, “he is vilified now”, they should retract them.
ETA: It looks like Wu was trying to use you to cause trouble for the plaintiffs, Melissa. Good on you for being a bigger person and avoiding the obvious traps. 
This post has been edited by Hinoema: May 5 2008, 02:27 AM -------------------- The Et Al |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 02:28 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
MelvinTLC Posts: 2,691 Joined: 1:57pm January 4, 2005 Location: My happy place |
They claim it's on the podcast; it's easy enough to check. A fact checker called me about some of this stuff; I told her to check the podcast for anything they claimed was on it (because I certainly couldn't remember who said what, and still can't, but told her I really didn't think I said what she claims I said), and she said they would. She also said they would change "Jo's blessing," which is one of the few things in this article mentioned to me; they were supposed to say "support." Because Jo hasn't "blessed" my book in that sense (what is it with all the religious imagery in this article?), as I didn't ask her to bless my book. I told her about it, and she supported it well before this case occurred, but there was never a permission required, as there isn't a doubt in this world that it's fair use, as it doesn't deal in her actual inventions. That was never even an issue between us, because she actually does know and respect the difference, contrary to what people would believe. Anyway, the line wasn't changed. And I was given no indication at all (not least by the 45-minute discussion with Mr. Wu about the actual merits of the case and not this weird and false construct of status and "fan feud" that I find abhorrent) that this article was not about what it seemed to be about.
I'm heading to bed before I get drawn into this further. I've probably ranted a bit too much already. Let's just say that before tonight I thought I couldn't be more hurt by someone who once called himself my friend, and I was extremely, terribly, wrong. -------------------- "I am not big enough to love things the way I do!"
~Edna St. Vincent Millay |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2008, 02:36 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary Posts: 498 Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005 |
Well, if it helps I respect you all to death right now for bearing up so well. Good night!
 ETA: So, about the effects of that bizarre cancellation clause- anyone? This post has been edited by Hinoema: May 5 2008, 02:37 AM -------------------- The Et Al |
|
|
|
