Thanks for the notice Chezzy, recording it now ;)
Am I alone in hoping this lawsuit drags on and bankrupts RDR – is that wrong?
To anyone who thinks Rowling is in the wrong here. Look up the Copyright Act that is there to protect writers, etc. Copyright = ownership. Books like mugglenets attempted to PREDICT what was going to happen in a book that had not been publshed yet. They were citing events that had occurred previously to prove their predictions. This premise made what they did legal. Now, onto more important book related news stories—-When is your’s being published Melissa????
Haha, cedrellaweasley . That’s the funniest comment so far.
Fair ravenclaw Glenn:
Yes, you are very correct about the essence of the legal system. But copyright is such a complex issue. The problem here is precisely what you say – the lawyers are doing what they do best, and the issue becomes muddled to any but another lawyer (which I am not :) ).
What is transpiring here is beyond just the issue of claiming originality, because, as I’ve mentioned in other posts, originality is only one element. Packaging/format is another, and there are aditional things to consider. At the end of the day, what really is at the crux of this is whether JKR was asked permission to use her material for the purpose of producing a money-making product.
As I mentioned before, this would be perfectly legal if there were permission to use the material for the express purpose of publishing a compendium of HP Canon to be sold for profit. Permission was neither asked nor granted. Therefore, the agrument has to revolve around such circumstances as the use of the material on a variety of websites with no challenge by JKR/WB, and similar things. This why it is so complex, and this is why every word that one says, particularly if one is in the public eye, must be carefully chosen.
One other point to make is that we are hearing the words of litigation lawyers. These are the people who appear in court and argue before judges. There is a method to their approach, no doubt, but in almost every case, they appear (I say APPEAR – I think it is a stance they adopt) to be belligerent, they try to ask for a lot more than they might be entitled to in the hope they will get something, ANYTHING, they can use. It is, in many respects, a game that lawyers are trained to play. We may not like the game, and we certainly (unless we are trained players) don’t understand the rules of the game and all their nuances. We have the right to comment, but we should do so in the full knowledge that what we think is the reality of the case may just be a stance, and that the real issues are obscured in all the words.
And as a final point, I realy would like to echo Melissa’s request that we keep this discusion on the high road. Leaky has always been seen as the place where this is true, and as Melissa says, resorting to insults and name calling, either of each other or of any of the principls in the case before the courts, is counterproductive.
Morton
Still with RDR on this. . . Even everyone on the other side, don’t pretend that this is such a straightforward, “obvious” case . It isn’t, so don’t make statements like “ridiculous” and “outrageous”. Thanks to everyone on the other side who gives reasoned views, not blanket statements.
Does the fact that RDR is asking for Jo’s personal notes on top of having all of her interviews and things from her website and fan sites seem a bit fishy? I have been out of school for a few years but I remember this little thing they taught us about – plagiarism. It is like saying, hey I know I have copied off of you and I need an A on my essay, what else have you added so I can add it to mine? All Steve is doing is taking the HPL website and printing it on paper to sell to the millions of fans he hoped to make a profit from. He is not only trying to publish works that are already published, but he is taking huge chunks of information provided by other fans and claiming it as his own. If he wants to write a book, fine write a “Dummy’s Guide to Harry Potter” with quotes from the book and ask permission to publish it FIRST. Anything that Jo has added about the books and characters after the release of the seventh book should be left out of his UNTIL hers is released and again he needs to ask her permission for that published information. Finally, he should donate at least 65-70% of the proceeds to Jo’s charity or any other one for all the trouble he has caused. I just cannot believe that this had to happen because someone (and I am not saying just Steve) got greedy and their sense of write and wrong became blurred. Even if Jo wins this case, I see it still having a negative impact on all fandom for anything to come.
I keep wondering just how Steve got himself into this. Did he go to RDR with the idea of publishing Jo’s work as his own? Or did RDR see the HPL and think “Here’s a chance to make a buck” and conact Steve with the idea?
I wonder what Steve himself feels about it now. He’s probably bound by a contract of some sort with RDR, so whatever he feels is irrelevant anyhow.
I just hope it’s resolved soon.
OMT
I cannot believe they tried to get Jo’s notes. I would not even want to know what would happen if the judge had let them have them. I agree in the findings that her notes are not relevant to this case at all.
And Old Mr. Toad I too wonder how Steve feels about all of this now. But of course his lawyers and the publisher will never let him have a voice.
but wasn’t jo’s encyclopedia a book with the info we don’t know? or does she intend to publish the info we already know from the books?
because this argument only could be understood if she won’t publish nothing new…
@ Persus
Jo has said that she intends to include all-new material in the encyclopaedia. In fact, in PotterCast 130, she even revealed how she imagined the book to be laid out, citing that on the left we’d have a fictional description of the subject and on the right a how-the-subject-came-to-be with background about the subject that may have been cut, change, etc.
Jo is definitely in the right on this matter. RDR is stepping way out of bounds.
Persus,
I believe that JKR said she intends to publish the encyclopedia as a compendium of the information that is already in the books, with all the additional stuff about the people, spells, creatures and so on included. Also, she said there is other new material that helps explain the existing information. So, yes, she is intending to publish new material as part of the overall encyclopedia.
Ultimately, however, I don’t believe that is relelvant to the case (whether she will publish anything new in her compendium). The bottom line issue is the printing of a product intended to make money, without permission of the owner of the material to do so.
I suspect, now that I think of it a little more, that the whole issue the lawyers are bringing up about it being a competitive book (that would preempt potential sales revenue of JKR’s book when it come out), is a lawyer’s way of approaching the case to bring it into an understable framework. That is, this is going to cost somebody some money and that can’t happen without permission. In reality, it is the permission itself that is at issue here, because any use of another’s material requires permission, even if not for money.
Morton
I know this has nothing to do with this post but JASON ISAACS is on ch4 Richard and Judy show in a few minutes! check it out :)