I totally support Ms Rowling, and also ChrisCHJ’s comments above.
It seems a lot of people here and in the comments sections of those sites have misunderstood what Vander Ark means by being tricked into it. It’s not that he’s trying to say that he wasn’t after money, he clearly WAS interested in profiting from the publication of his Lexicon, but what he means is that the Publisher tricked him into believing that publishing it and profitting from it would not infringe upon Rowling’s copyright as in the case of many other HP Reference manuals that have been published without threats for lawsuits. It is a Publisher’s responsibility to identify and assess whether a work or work in progress is in violation of plagiarism or copyright infringement. Vander Ark is just trying to say that he was led to believe that his writing and rewording was considered adequate enough to be considered legal-free.
@underscore
I see where you’re coming from, but for a lot of fans it is very frustrating to hear him say this now when in (somewhat recent) earlier interviews he kept saying he was in the right and a win for RDR is a win for the fandom.
No. Leaky announced like last week that they were no longer associated with Lexicon. Good for them. Jo is the only person in my opinion who can write a harry potter encyclopedia, i wouldn’t read any others which are just based on information from the books which jo created. I thinks it’s so lazy that lexicon should try and get money by writing a book on which they created none of it. And by the sound of it, what they’ve writen isn’t even good.
Is there going to be a full transcript up like there was yesterday. I feel I need balanced information to form an opinion. However from the begining of all of this I felt that Steve and RDR books were completely out of order at the end of the day his own “book” wouldn’t exist without JK Rowling. Maybe we won’t get a transcript as it would mean someone from Leaky would have to have been at court today, and that means taking time off work etc… I thought yesterdays transcript was great and obvoiusly a good deal of work had been put into it.
I’m just curious whether Leaky is going to post the same amount of information about the second day as they did about the first? We have been waiting and waiting to hear what Steve’s defence was and these two news posts aren’t really balanced in terms of what was said. I know Leaky has made a stand about their association with the Lexicon (which I completely agree with) but it is still a news site. Cheers.
Mmkay, chappies, let’s not overreact.
He’s not a death eater, he’s just a very naughty boy.
Awaiting Leaky’s report eagerly…
From the WSJ blog - Cendali showed an e-mail from Vander Ark to the host of another Potter fan site. Vander Ark, apparently disillusioned with the deal he struck with RDR in August, wrote: “I am more than willing to dissociate myself with RDR. They have lied to me, misled me, taken advantage of me and in the end ruined my good standing with fans and with Rowling.”
This is very interesting. Who was the other Potter site and what did they say back to Steve. I would love to know that.
This comment was posted on the WSJ blog by someone named Janet and I agree with her 100% -
“I think that sitting on the stand with Jo looking right at him he finally realized just what a mess of things has been made. I’ve been following this case since it’s inception on October 31st. Until the moment of trial he couldn’t keep his trap shut about how a win for RDR would be a win for fans. He dug himself into a hole and discovered that the people he said he was speaking for didn’t agree with him. He’s gone from being one of the unofficial ‘experts’ to a black mark upon fandome. And now, that he is finally upon the stand; he cowers and blames someone besides himself? Did the devil make him do it? Is the devil RDR Books? Dear God, Steve is 50 years old, apparently he is a weak willed individual if he allowed himself risk something he cared about for 8 years. Steve made his bed months ago, and now he has to sleep in it.”
Janet has hit the nail on the head.
Maybe he was tricked, maybe he wasn’t. But look at the last several weeks of his comments on the case, shows that he might be lying to get sympathy from the judge. All I have to say to people defending Steve, why did he ask for RDR to protect him from cases like this?! Just something you should think about.
I do think Leaky dropped the ball on this one… if we’re going to stay fair, then I think that Steve’s words need the same attention that Jo’s got. Personal opinion, but it’s one based in teaching journalism….
Budb
Thank you.
I am actually a criminal lawyer and so restricted my comments to obvious professional client care points and have no desire to trash either set of litigants Jo does seem very emotional about the case and clearly, the whole withdrawal from writing the books is a very hard slog for a self-confessed obssessive/compulsive. No one but her will ever know the emotional highs and lows she has gone through writing the Potter books and she obviously sees the Lexicon as an attack on “one of her children”.
As I said above, good luck to her and for her own peace of mind, the sooner she is home, the better.
I’m disappointed.
I’m disappointed in the fans who write with all their vitriol turned on a middle aged librarian who, I’ve been told, has been fired from his job and received Howlers from many fans, who’s so often been judged for being sloppy by fans who haven’t bothered to read up on the facts, who’s been abandoned by people whom I thought were friends of his – and for what?
For having the temerity to try to publish a book which he believed was legal. It is the publisher’s reponsibility to check that a book is legal, and this publisher assured him it was, with full knowledge of what the book would contain.
For having the apparently unspeakable chutzpah to say that he believed this lawsuit, if he lost it, would set a bad precedent. This was what triggered Leaky’s disassociation with the Lexicon.
I’ve followed this case, and while it may be that RDR is in the wrong. It certainly seems so. But what impressed me most about this case was the eagerness people have to kick someone while he’s down, to spew hatred when the rest of the pack is doing so.
And yes, while I have great respect for Leaky’s measured reporting, and appreciate their allowing me and others a forum for speaking our opinions, I am also disappointed in their decision to make life even worse for someone who’s seen his entire life collapse around him.
“I do think Leaky dropped the ball on this one… if we’re going to stay fair, then I think that Steve’s words need the same attention that Jo’s got. Personal opinion, but it’s one based in teaching journalism….
Posted by Melissa on April 15, 2008 @ 06:09 PM “
it’s still “office hours” in NY at the moment, I think, sooo… court probably isn’t over yet today.. be patient!!
It seems a lot of people here and in the comments sections of those sites have misunderstood what Vander Ark means by being tricked into it. It’s not that he’s trying to say that he wasn’t after money, he clearly WAS interested in profiting from the publication of his Lexicon, but what he means is that the Publisher tricked him into believing that he was publishing it and profitting from it would not infringe upon Rowling’s copyright as in the case of many other HP Reference manuals that have been published without threats for lawsuits. It is a Publisher’s responsibility to identify and assess whether a work or work in progress is in violation of plagiarism or copyright infringement. Vander Ark is just trying to say that he was led to believe that his writing and rewording was considered adequate enough to be considered legal-free.