In The News
RDR Books Files Response to JKR/WB in Lexicon Suit
LegalRDR Books has filed its response to the full request for an injunction to the Harry Potter Lexicon book filed by WB and J.K. Rowling three weeks ago. There are in all declarations from six people and several hundred papers of exhibits, most of which are copies of text from books (including almost the entire Lexicon book).
As a reminder of the current schedule: Feb. 27: WB/JKR file a response to this response March 13: A hearing will be convened with Judge Robert P Patterson
Edited to add: The full content of the filings has just been uploaded at Justia.com (by the ever-vigilant Nicholas, saving us a lot of bandwidth – thank you!).
The overarching document – the opposition brief – in this case says:
1. That J.K. Rowling “appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction,” and that “this is a right no court has ever recognized,” and if accepted it would “eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements,” as well as threaten “encyclopedias, glossaeries, indexes and other tools that provide useful information about copyrighted works.” It says JKR’s rights “simply do not extend so far” and she hasn’t shown that this guide poses a significant threat.
2. After giving background on the Lexicon, is describes the beginnings of the Lexicon book, which is later backed up in a declaration by Rapoport: It says Rapoport called Vander Ark after reading about him in an article, and Vander Ark “expressed interest in publishing a book version of the website. Rapoport said he thought the A-Z index was the best part to publish.
3. The brief recounts the history of the action by saying, “Shortly after RDR Books announced its intention to publish the Lexicon, Plaintiffs commenced this action.” There is no mention in this brief of the cease-and-desist letters that have been detailed by JKR/WB.
4. The brief says it is “far too late” for JKR to be the “first to publish” a Potter companion books, citing “nearly 200 Harry Potter companion guides,” “many of which incorporate A to Z listings.” RDR provides six of these books as evidence:
a. The Unofficial Harry Potter Encyclopedia: Harry Potter A-Z, by Kristina Benson
b. Field Guide to Harry Potter, by Colin Duriez
c. The J.K. Rowling Encyclopedia, by Connie Ann Kirk
d. A Muggle’s Guide to Exploring the Wizarding World by Fiona Boyle
e. Fact, Fiction and Folklore in Harry Potter’s World, by George Beahm
f. The End of Harry Potter? by David Langford
The documents do not list the 200 companion books. but count these six as the ones that had “especially striking similarities to the Lexicon in both format and content: At first flush, (a) appears to be out of print or unavailable on Amazon, (b) is about 2/3rds non-encyclopedic work, (c) seems to not be listed on Amazon, (d)’s title is actually “An Unofficial…” etc. and (f) is a predictions book.
5. Prof. Janet Sorensen declares in favor of RDR, and the brief says she says that “lexicons like this one have an important and distinguished place in the literary world…it organizes a tremendous amount of information into a concise and readable form…[and] provides a significant amount of original analysis and commentary.” It also says the HPL takes information from “painstaking collection” of Ms. Rowling’s interviews and statements, and Sorensen says it “helps readers to construct the universe of the Potter books in their minds, to understand its rich connections to the wide world in which we live, and to encourage the impulse to imagine a universe beyond the one depicted in the books.”
6. The brief maintains the HPL is “highly transformative,” and an example of work that has “always been held to constitute fair use.”
The argument of the brief states that to get this preliminary injunction, JKR/WB would have to show irreparable harm in the absence of it, and either “a likelihood of success on the merits or…sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant’s favor.”
It maintains that:
1. JKR/WB has not shown a case of infringement: “the Lexicon does not ‘reproduce’ the Harry Potter Works (or any one of them) in any meaningful sense of the word’ and claims examples of derivative works include ‘a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,” and then says the Lexicon does not fit in those categories because “reference guide” is not among them. It also says the Lexicon does not “recast, transform or adapt copyrighted works in comparable ways.”
2. It claims, based on a declaration from the Lexicon is a “supplementary work, the purpose of which is ‘explaining…commenting upon [and] assisting in the use of’ the Harry Potter Works, citing Benjamin Kaplan’s An Unhurried View of Copyright.
3. “Even if” it was a ”’reproduction’ or ‘derivative work,’” JKR/WB would have to “show substantial similarity between the Lexicon and Harry Potter Works.
4. The Lexicon is protected by Fair Use, the document says, because it is “a valuable reference tool that helps readers to better access, understand and enjoy the Harry Potter works.” The brief argues that fair use is not a “narrow exception” but an integral part of the Copyright Act incorporating the need to ‘allow others to build’ upon copyrighted works. It claims Fair Use is a ‘First Amendment safeguard’ that prevents copyright law from burdening free speech.
5. That fair use is governed by four factors that are non-exclusive:
a. The “purpose and character of use,” ie, whether the nature of the work is ‘transformative.’ The brief says a transformative work ‘adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message,’ citing Campbell and a case against Amazon, Inc. a decision involving a search engine’s ability to produce thumbnail images.
The brief says a “thoughtful review of the Lexicon reveals significant, transformative functions that add extensive value, understanding and insights to the original works,” and claims the “organizational value” of the book makes it transformative.
It also says the Lexicon has a “significant amount of commentary and analysis,” citing the entry on Neville Longbottom and Luna Lovegood, talking about his bravery and leadership and Luna’s observations about her nature, decodes meaning of geographical and historical references and revealed “myriad errors and inconsistencies in the Harry Potter Works,” citing the example of Marcus Flint appearing as a seventh-year after he was to have graduated. (As an aside, this discovery was not made by nor is unique to this book; it is frequently spotted by fans and the first public record of it comes from 2000 ago on the HP for Grown Ups list by a user named Stephanie.)
The brief says “any fair reading” reveals significant transformative value, and that attempts to compare it to the case of the Seinfeld trivia book are inaccurate because of the nature of a trivia book not being a reference guide.
The brief compares the Lexicon to the Beanie Baby collector’s guide that was the subject of a lawsuit as well.
b. “Nature of the copyrighted work”: The brief says, again, that the Lexicon helps readers better “access, understand and enjoy” the Potter books.
c. Amount of the work used: This factor assess the portion of the original work used in the accused work, and this brief says that relies on “whether the extent of copying is reasonable in light of its purpose,” citing a search engine’s need to produce photographs and the Beanie Babies’ collector’s guide depicting the Beanie Babies products. It claims JKR/WB have ignored the purpose in their claim that the work relies too heavily on the original HP books. It also points out that the Lexicon does not borrow the overarching plot sequence or story ark, pace, setting, or dramatic structure, only “short quotes,” and “no more than what is necessary to its purpose.”
d. Market Effect: The brief says this depends (quoting Bill Graham from the MCA, Inc. v. Wilson suit) upon “balancing the benefit the public will derive if the use is permitted” versus “the personal gain the copyright owner will receive if the use is denied.” It says there can be “no dispute” the Lexicon gives “substantial public value,” citing J.K. Rowling’s and WB’s use of the web site (though it says “Lexicon,” without distinguishing the book from the site), claims based on a declaration from Steve Vander Ark. It also claims there can be no market harm because JKR/WB did not argue that the Lexicon book would be bought instead of one of the seven HP novels or seeing an HP movie. It also says that derivative works are “eligible for fair use protection.” It also says that it is incumbent on JKR to prove that the Lexicon is a substitute for the guide she wants to publish, and says that J.K. Rowling does not suggest anyone would purchase the Lexicon guide instead of hers.
The brief then goes on to say that the contents of the Lexicon being made available for free negates any market harm, and that the fact that it has existed online for free for six years should mean it is able to be sold in printed form.
“If and when Ms. Rowling decides to publish a companion guide, it will undoubtedly be unique,” the brief says, citing the Leaky Cauldron’s interview with J.K. Rowling in December 2007. It specifically mentions (multiple times throughout these documents) that she anticipated it might take as many as 10 years to produce, and that her ideal layout would be “facing pages” with backstory and extra details on characters on the left-facing pages and extra information that wasn’t in the books on the right. The brief repeatedly – outside of the exhibit in which is prints the enitrety of the transcript – leaves out the portion of the interview in which J.K. Rowling said it would be a definitive, give everyone-everything sort of guide. Here is the relevant text from the PotterCast transcript:
JKR: I’m just gonna say, “This might change,” but I imagined it as half of it, maybe on facing pages, but that might be difficult just through layout. But the ideal would be to have- say on the left hand side you’ve got a page showing all your back story, extra details on characters, or an entry on wands, showing what every character’s wand was and all of this stuff. And I think also it might be interesting to have information about the actual writing and what I discarded. So on one side it’s acting like the whole world is true and it’s giving you extra information on that real world and on the other side we’re admitting that it’s actually fiction and I’m showing yeah, discarded plots, characters that didn’t make it, problems in the plot. I think both lots of information are interesting so it would be nice to unite both of them… I think the only- the point of doing it, if I’m going to do it, it’s about doing the absolute definitive, giving people everything guide. ... [E]verything that I’ve got, put it that way. That’s what I aspire to do at the moment. It might, for practical reasons not be possible to do both sets of information in that way but I would like to, that would be the ideal. ... I think there’s no point in me doing it unless it’s amazing. And I think there’s no point in writing it unless it is everything and the last thing that I want to do is to feel that I have to rush something out because (SU: Right.) do you know what I mean? My hand is being forced or there’s demand and other people will fill it first. I think, I just want to do it right or not do it at all. And I really do want to do it right.
The brief claims her idea of the guide focuses largely on what is not in the books.
6. This brief claims there has been no bad faith on the part of RDR Books or Steve Vander Ark. It dismisses the JKR/WB “smoking gun” email in which Steve Vander Ark said a book of the HPL would be illegal and against Jo’s wishes, by saying, “Vander Ark is a layperson, not a lawyer, and his speculation as to the legal status of the Lexicon (since corrected) is beside the point.”
7. The brief says the quote in question from the Harry Potter Lexicon web site has been removed from the book’s cover – but it does not mention in this brief (only later, in Rapoport’s declaration) that it wasn’t removed from the Lexicon cover until after JKR/WB’s filing. It also claims if the quote remained the false endorsement evidence offered by JKR/WB would not apply because the quote does not have “the potential to mislead anyone,” and maintains the survey in which an independent consultant showed people the cover of the book and determined that 38-55 percent of them had been falsely mislead by the fansite award text, was fatally flawed because there was a disclaimer underneath it. It claims JKR/WB instructed respondents to look only at the quote and invite them to ignore the disclaimer.
8. The brief says JKR/WB has not met the burden of showing “irreparable harm.”
Further information not addressed above in the remaining documents:
1. Steve Vander Ark’s declaration says that:
a. Approximately 10 percent of the material included in the Lexicon book is part of the original postings on the web site when it was created. The remaining is material added to the web site since 2000.
b. No one has ever demanded a “cease-and-desist” for material on the web site that is now in the book.
c. The staff compiled an A-Z index of the site in 2005.
d. It has been his goal to present “a comprehensive encyclopedia, a single source in which they can find descriptions and definitions of all the characters, places, spells, creatures and physical objects in the world of Harry Potter.”
e. He says his contributions are about 60 percent of entries, and 40 percent by staff or other contributors and editors “and also fans whose comments and emails have proved useful and informative.”
f. In making the web site he says he has used general fable and myth research tools as well as the Potter books.
g. The only revenue has come from the “very limited advertising I allow. About three years ago, I began accepting ads from Amazon.com in return for a payment of approximately $15 per month. About 18 months ago I began accepting ads from Google for a payment of approximately $100 per month. Together, these ad revenues have covered the cost of operating the web site.” [The Leaky Cauldron houses and runs the Harry Potter Lexicon for zero charge, and has since it came under its current domain name. That is true as of this posting. The original intent before this response was filed was to transfer the Lexicon to its own server; because of this question of ownership and cost, we will refrain from changing any variables where sworn statements are concerned, and will not transfer the domain until litigation has been completed. At that time we will be happy to do so.]
h. The web site gets approximately 350K pageviews per month on its index page and 1.5 million per month on its entire site.
i. “Beginning in about 2003, I received regular requests from fans for printed copies of the Lexicon website, proof of a demand for a print version…At the same time, a number of people contacted me with proposals for using the material on the Lexicon website in a printed encyclopedia. For a considerable time I declined these suggestions…There were two reasons for this. First, until the summer of 2007, Ms. Rowling had not completed the series of Potter books, so that any encyclopedia published before that point would be incomplete. Second, until August 2007, I believed that an encyclopedia, in book form, would represent a copyright violation. This was an assumption on my part, however, as a layperson.”
j. “Before visiting London in July of 2007, I requested a fifteen-minute meeting with the Agency [Christopher Little] to discuss both the work visa [ that he was trying toget] and the possibility of using material from the Lexicon for a book and was told they didn’t have time.” [There is no document in the filing proving this, unless it refers to this letter, as cited by JKR/WB, which does not mention his wish to publish the Lexicon as a book.] “I made no further plans for a book until Roger Rapoport of RDR Books contacted me.”
k. Roger Rapoport told Vander Ark that he had consulted with an expert who said the publication would be legal, during discussions about the book. Steve then requested RDR indemnify him against lawsuits.
l. Work on the book began after August 20, 2007, and was completed on Sept. 15. It contains half the web site.
m. The book is smaller than the online resource because of space issues. “Entries in the book are often condensed versions of corresponding sections of the web site.
n. “It is true that, in a few places, the book employs phrases or sometimes whole sentences that are similar to phrases or sentences in the Potter books…in those cases, however, the similarity in language was unavoidable.”
o. “Over the past several years, I have gained widespread recognition as an expert on the Potter world. I have been interviewed about various Harry Potter subjects by the School Library Journal, Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Detroit Free Press…and several other publications whose names I do not recall.”
Vander Ark claims David Heyman, producer of Harry Potter, said the Potter flimmakers use the Lexicon web site almost every day. This was supposed to have been said during a set visit in which many fan outlets were invited to see the Order of the Phoenix lot.
q. The Electronic Arts Studio, the declaration says, has printouts of the reader’s guide on its walls.
r. After the release of the sixth book, Cheryl Klein of Scholastic sent Steve a thank-you note on behalf of his staff which is included as an exhibit. It reads: “Steve Vander Ark for the HP Lexicon: Dear Steve and the rest of the Lexicon team – On behalf of the Scholastic Half-Blood Prince editorial staff, I’d like to say thank you for the wonderful resource your site provides for fans, students, and indeed editors and copy editors of the Harry Potter series. We referred to the Lexicon countless times during the editing of HP6, whether to verify a fact, check a timeline, or get a chapter and book reference for a particular event…We’re all HP fans ourselves, of course, but you made our work immeasurably easier through the one-stop searchable HP encyclopedia the site offers. Please accept this as a token of our admiration and appreciation, and ever so many thnanks again – All best wishes, Cheryl Klein.”
s. The sole purpose of the Lexicon website and book, Vander Ark says, “is to encourage fan interest in, and serve as a reference to, the Harry Potter books…the Lexicon book cannot be financially successful or profitable if the Harry Potter works are not financially successful or profitable….I believe that Harry Potter fans will buy a similar work written by Ms. Rowling even if they have purchased a copy of the Lexicon book because her fans are very loyal to her and will always want what she writes.”
t. He deems many declarations from JKR/WB to be inaccurate and says that the books referenced by JKR/WB have been “carefully chosen to exclude” what has been seen in the case as other HP encyclopedias. It also says Neil Blair has never asked Vander Ark to remove from the website any material which is now part of the Lexicon book, and says that means the same content in a for-profit book is therefore not infringing. It says Diana Birchall’s claim that no outside sources were used to write the book is incorrect, and gives a few examples. It also goes on to illustrate what he deems as analysis in specific entries.
u. “Fans of Harry Potter, and ultimately Ms. Rowling her self, will only benefit,” from publication of the book.”
Further declarations are from Shawn Malhotra, a first-year law student at New York University, who summarized press statements J.K. Rowling has made regarding her encyclopedia, which quotes a significant portion of the statements J.K. Rowling made in the PotterCast interview:
The quote they use is this:
“The ideal would be to have- say on the left hand side you’ve got a page showing all your back story, extra details on characters, or an entry on wands, showing what every character’s wand was and all of this stuff. ...And I think also it might be interesting to have information about the actual writing and what I discarded. So on one side it’s acting like the whole world is true and it’s giving you extra information on that real world … and on the other side we’re admitting that it’s actually fiction and I’m showing yeah, discarded plots, characters that didn’t make it, problems in the plot. I think both lots of information are interesting so it would be nice to unite both of them.”
[To be fair, the next thing she says in the transcript, however, is:
“Well, exactly, to be honest, I think the only- the point of doing it, if I’m going to do it, it’s about doing the absolute definitive, giving people everything guide.”]
There is also a declaration from David Harris, another first-year law student, who has provided summaries of the six books listed as also uncontested HP encyclopedias.
Roger Rapoport also provides a new mockup of a cover for the book, which was designed in “late January.” The title has been changed to The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials and consists of a plain white cover. The front and back now list extensive disclaimers.
Janet Sorensen, a tenured professor at the English Department at UC Berkeley, made a declaration that says the Lexicon is “part of a long tradition of lexicons and guidees,” and mentions as a comparable example Charlotte Lennox’s Shakespeare Illustrated, in which she presented a guide to the public domain characters and plots of Shakespeare, and Samuel Richardson’s own guide to his own work, Pamela Illustrated. Most of the beginning of the declaration involves guides and lexicons in the 19th century and early 20th. It also mentions 20th-century examples of guides to JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis’s work, and notes that the works were published while still under Tolkien and Lewis’s copyright but doesn’t address the level to which permission was sought or granted for each. The Lexicon, she says, is a “ready resource” for J.K. Rowling’s creations; Sorensen mentions her own need to have her memory jogged while reading, etymological information in the book and citations. She says the Lexicon is helpful for the youngest readers of the book, referring to a six-year-old she knows who might find value in it. She also says that the Lexicon’s pointing out of mistakes is likely to be unique to it, and not included in Rowling’s version, adding value. She also attests to the light moments of critical interpretation and analysis.
*
That’s all for now. Apologies if it was too long, and you didn’t read. More in a few weeks. We hope, at least…
rate this article
Interested in Legal?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
The thing they fail to metion is that the whole reason Jo wants to prevent publication of this book is because she wants the ecyclopedia money to go to charity
It seems to me that what RDR/SVA are saying now is different than what they were originally saying and doing. Initially they told WB to (paraphrased here) ‘go to the Lexion and print it off’ if WB wanted to know what was going to be in the book. Now, in reading Melissa’s summary and Steve’s declaration, that isn’t exactly the case – supposedly the book will only be an A-Z encyclopedic listing. In addition, the cover of the proposed Lexicon book has been changed dramatically from something that looked as if it had JKR’s support to “The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials and consists of a plain white cover. The front and back now list extensive disclaimers.”
I can understand completely how JKR and WB would fight for their rights over the initial book and I totally support them in that fight. As things have evolved or if RDR and SVA had been truthful in the beginning if that truly was their intent (see the above changes I noted), perhaps it’s not copyright infringement. Not being an attorney, I don’t know. But I do think it’s odd that so much has changed about the proposed book on RDR/SVA’s part since we first heard about the case and I think they know they were in the wrong and are trying to cover it up by making these changes. Just my thoughts!
Kirstin
Hi Anne, I absolutely agree with you [“But I would rather go without a guide altogether that betray JK by buying SVAs version. In the meantime I can get all the enjoyment I need from her books and imagine the background”]. I’ve been on the Lexicon site several times in the past, and while it certainly is well compiled by van der Ark and the fans who sent stuff, the information that he plans to publish in the book not only comes directly from JKR’s books, but has been, more often than not, quoted literally from the novels. There has been no analysis whatsoever, it’s merely rearranging sentences. He has no right, no right at all to draw profits from JKR’s hard work.
“Also, let’s be real: JK Rowling has flat-out lied about her characters, her plots, and her imagery. She’s also contradicted herself about a dozen times in interviews after the last book was published, AND she had the nerve to inflict a poorly edited, contradictory, badly characterized doorstop on her fans last summer.”
LMAO. Let me guess… a bitter slytherin fan?
“e. He says his contributions are about 60 percent of entries, and 40 percent by staff or other contributors and editors “and also fans whose comments and emails have proved useful and informative.”
So if – god forbid – he gets the lexicon published, are these people going to be apid for their contributions? Does he even have their permission in the first place?
budb (on page 2): I think RDR will also have trouble getting damages if they win because they have effectively already conceded some points in the course of the lawsuit, such as the revision of the cover (which they now seem to have revised a second time after JKR/WBs detailed complaint was posted), so (in my non-legal opinion) they have admitted that the original lawsuit was at least partially justified.
re: “LMAO. Let me guess… a bitter slytherin fan?”
Heh. Either that or a bitter Harry/Hermione shipper. Or one of Snape’s astral wives. ;)
“From the screen names that appear in the Lexicon related threaded discussions, its pretty obvious that some closely follow the entire discussion and have throughout, others pop in and out and don’t read carefully, and others appear new to the topic… ok, thats ‘normal’ in any protracted discussion. Yesterday’s discussion re the sudden spate of Lexicon related editorials and interviews brought out some nastiness, despite the fact that—as someone put it (was it professor i?)—the situation smacked of a feint that was designed to coincide with the submission of RDR’s documents to the court….”
@budb, many of us have carefully read Melissa’s posts on this case and some have even taken the time to read the actual legal documents. You will have to excuse us if we are not as dispassionate as you about this case, but could you please try to be less pompus about it?
oh, i am procrastinating and not doing work!
roon, its an all around sad situation, as SVA put it….
one thing that does strike me is the speed at which the legal documents are becoming public. my little experience with the court system in the US suggests that in most cases the exact details of legal wrangling and the documents filed with the court are kept confidential most of the time. here, we have instant access, from both sets of legal representatives….
ok, i better work, or face the consequences!
I can’t help but think that the response from RDR goes to great lengths to demonstrate why any derived work NOT of the form of the one they intend to publish should be considered fair use. Which, it seems to me, is also what JKR/WB have been saying.
It strikes me, as others have noted, that RDR seems to continually be avoiding the core question from JKR/WB—namely how repackaging can be construed as fair use.
sorry you find my efforts at a dispassionate and neutral writing style “pompous”, Molly. However, I’m sure you’ll agree that too many are posting without the close reading you are doing? Its that segment of our fellow fans I hope to persaude to be more attentive and careful in their arguments
“c. The J.K. Rowling Encyclopedia, by Connie Ann Kirk”
I was wondering about that. I went to the library a couple of weeks back and found this book in the HP section. It is indeed an A-Z listing of HP stuff with deflinitions/descriptions. However, since it is not in print anymore (perhaps because of threatened legal action) I don’t see how it is relevant.
By the way, reporting facts that are damaging to the cause of SVR and RDR is not a sign of bias. It is a sign of good Journalism.
Thank you, once again, Melissa. Ah, Corinne, Coral; Ellid, Elide, so close, and yet, so far. Let me see: first of all it’s the Definitive Book that in principle should be sanctioned by Rowling and WB, and now it’s an UNAUTHORISED book with tons of DISCLAIMERS. I agree with Kirstin, this, as of 8 February 2008, is a different book. They are, of course, entitled to print an unauthorised book that does not simply regurgitate great chunks of Rowling’s work. But that, however, was not the book SVA/RDR was trying to publish in November 2007. They were trying to pretend they had official sanction and recognition when they had neither, and, in reality, had done all in their power to publish, precisely without getting the requisite official sanction. The argument that this is about the principle of free speech or Fair Use can now be seen for what it always was: a rather feeble smokescreen. Conclusion: costs to WB, and RDR will be able to print their Unauthorised Book. No doubt in their publicity blurb they will have the chutzpah to state: “THE BOOK THEY TRIED TO BAN BLA, BLA BLA…” As for RDR/SVA’s claims re principle and truth? Fan Fiction anyone? What does one call someone who confuses fact and fiction? Deluded? Yep, there’s THAT word again!!!
Let’s face it… Even the best reporter cannot be perfectly objective. I have to say, Melissa, that I admire your devotion and your (good) hard work. However I also have to agree with some. I would not call this article “unbiased”. This is not really a criticism. I perfectly understand that in such cases it is difficult to keep “a straight face”. You cannot not convincingly argue that your “additions” to the pure summary do not convey a more personal opinion… As some have stressed, some “additions” were not absolutely necessary (such as the comment about flaws in the plot) and merely indicate latent criticism…
A good editorial/opinion piece might get it out of your system…
I just figure no true-blue fan will a) pay for something they can get for free online, and b) deny the charities that will be the beneficiaries of the revenue from the Scottish Book their due.
I will 100% buy the Scottish Book. I don’t begrudge JKR any of her millions (billions? :-) ).
I also don’t begrudge SVA and the HPL staff any rewards for the work they’ve put in on the lexicon… but could I suggest instead that he sell advertising on the site, and get revenue that way? That way, the content remains free, and he will get revenue over the long term. He could also accept donations.
(I am purposefully NOT checking the HPL to see if these things are already in place, to make a point. If they are, the HPL staff should leave it at that.)
It sounds like RDR is using “two wrongs do make a right” kind of logic, referencing all the other similar ‘authors’ who have enriched themselves on the backs of real author’s ingenuity and creativity.
But as in all things, just because its legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Since DH was published, your interest in Potter fandom has:
- Increased! I'm more involved now than I ever was!794 (22%)
- It's stayed at the same level of fun it always has!1333 (38%)
- Decreased slightly: I only check sites a few times a week now.887 (25%)
- Severely lowered. Without new canon, I'm bored.358 (10%)
- It's gone. In fact, I can't even answer this poll because I'm not really visting a Potter site.112 (3%)
well said, onespeedonly. I think the news here has been the most unbiased I’ve seen and I am grateful to Melissa for clarification of some points. Otherwise I’d be completely confused.