@Jeanne

according to the testimony given SVA’s book is approximately 91% of Jo’s text ripped straight from the book! You need to go back and read more!

It makes me sick to think that in this day and age people don’t actually know what the word “plagiarism” means.

from the dictionary:

to take and use ideas, passages, etc., from (another’s work) by plagiarism.

In other words, if I was to take the following sentence written by Sprocket: “No, the only reason SVA and RDR are doing this is greed” and not put the quotes around it and not say that I had taken it from Sprocket but rather say that I said it and pass it off as my own in an academic setting and then make money off of it?

That’s called plagiarism. If I was to go and write a book and use any part of any book that is currently under copyright and claim that it was my idea, my work or just plain not cite it and give that author credit it – it’s illegal.

That is what happened. There is too much of the original Harry Potter text in the Lexicon for the book to be passed as Steve Vander Ark and the other three author’s work.

I don’t want to vilify SVA. We’re all doing that enough. The bottom line is – Jo isn’t doing this for money. If she was then the book she wants to write – the Scottish Book – wouldn’t be for CHARITY.

Let me say that one more time -

Her. Encyclopedia. Is. For. Charity.

Jo is probably the least greedy rich person I’ve ever heard of. Day after day I hear about all the charity work she does. And darn it I’m glad. I’m glad that she made all her money, knew where she came from, and is giving back. I love Jo Rowling. She gave me a series that I have loved since I was 12. She gave me a series that I love to discuss with my mom. I love the way she writes and quite frankly I’m glad she’s rich because if she weren’t? She wouldn’t have the money to stand up for the rights of all writers.

Thats what this is about. The rights of all writers out there to have their work protected. If you would like that a term paper you wrote for school, worked on for weeks and got an A minus on – if you would that that term paper to then be stolen and 90% of it turned in with 10% new material and given a A plus for a different student then by all means stand by SVA and RDR.

Personally? I want my written work protected. I’d like to know that if I ever publish something someday no one is going to turn around and take that from me because they feel like it.

Jo- stand up for all of us who can’t afford to stand up for ourselves. Keep fighting for those of us who want our work protected. YOU are the real Harry Potter. The one who stands up for the ones who can’t fight for themselves.

To follow up on Nick’s and Andrew’s comments re: Wizard Rock: There are several songs I’ve come across that pull quotes/short passages from the HP books, and so forth. However, a strong majority of songs are based on characters and looking at the world (and HP world) from that character’s perspective. And since I’ve yet to come across a Wizard Rock song longer than 8 min, I feel pretty confident that the ratio of direct quotation to original material favors slightly to each band – although it could also be closely related to musical versions of fan fiction.

If you really want to bring WRock into this though, consider how many EP’s, albums and songs have been written/compiled to raise awareness and/or funds to some charity – even all of Leaky’s Jingle Spells proceeds went to charity.

@Sprocket

I just wanted to say I love you. Thank you for the perfect PERFECT example of exactly what happened in this book.

I hope everyone who is questioning exactly why this is such a big deal – read Jeanne’s post and then read Sprocket’s.

Think of it as this. Jeanne is JKR and Sprocket is SVA. How pissed would you be if you were Jeanne and Sprocket was stealing all your hard thought out words?

@ Jeanne

Beckett already said this in her comment, but just in case you missed it, allow me to reiterate:

JO. IS. DOING. THE. ENCYCLOPEDIA. FOR. CHARITY.

CHARITY.

One more time, in case you still haven’t got it:

CHARITY.

So let’s jump off the self-righteous “Mean ol’ JKR is just doing this out of GREED!!!” soapbox, shall we?

They’re called facts. Look into them.

@ Anthony

If I recall correctly that was NOT admissible in court. Since that figure could not be debated there is no knowing if it is accurate.

And because I’m lazy I’m copying this from another comment I made :

Now, I haven’t read the entire Lexicon manuscript (I began briefly skimming it today), and am not going to sit at the computer for hours on end seeing if the words are exactly from JKR’s books, what I notice is this: while the book is NOT a scholarly piece, and the way the references are done (e.g. GoF5, for Goblet of Fire, chapter 5) are not scholarly, he does acknowledge the source material. That type of citation where the original source is cited, and the sentence is a paraphrasing of the original work, is accepted in the academic world. Again, the Lexicon is NOT pretending to be an academic book, however it DOES cite its sources. Does it take more than is reasonable (which, IIRC, is part of the 4 factors of Fair Use)? I think it might be close, because where is the line between reasonable and too much?

If you guys want to talk about why JKR should win, fine. But do so using the 4 factors of Fair Use. Don’t use personal attacks, because it does not help your case any.

Also, the charity argument is not relevant to the law. And given the way that everyone is reacting, I’m willing to put money on that, if SVA was writing the Lexicon for charity, he would still be maligned. So not only is the argument irrelevant in the eyes of copyright law, it’s irrelevant because he would not be granted any forgiveness if The Lexicon was done for charity.

I think is a complex and contentious issue, and I cannot agree with anyone who expresses “unqualified support” for EITHER VanDerArk OR Rowling. I think that both their cases have merit and faults. I am tired of Leaky fans flaming anyone with a dissenting view out of loyalty to Rowling. I am tired of Leaky fans flaming Steve VanderArk.

We have to allow people to hold different views, people, otherwise we become Umbridges and Voldemorts and Fudges. You don’t have to agree, but you ought not to attack when you disagree. This is clearly not an “obvious” or easy or clear decision – the judge has said as much! Or in Jo’s words, (If I may, without a lawyer descending!): “The world is not divided into good people and death-eaters”.

Leaky, once again, thank you for bringing us reportage of both sides of this issue. I truly appreciate it.

To my mind, Harry Potter has been born, and can now live apart from its author – as do other literary works. My loyalty is to Harry Potter, rather than to Rowling. (There IS a difference).

(For the record, before the paranoia starts, I have never met SVA and have no connection to his site. I am not planning a fan book of my own.)

@ anonymouse

The reason people are stressing the fact that JKR is doing the encyclopedia is because of Jeanne’s comment that JKR is only trying to stop SVA from publishing his Lexibook is because she is greedy, and wants to milk the HP world for every last penny it’s worth.

No one is saying that Jo doing it for charity has anything to do with the legal arguments. But if someone comes here and makes such a spectacularly unfair comment like that, then we have every right to refute it. And like it or not, we are going to refute it, because Jeanne’s accusation was based on a clear ignorance of fact. Deal with it.

Thank you pottershrink, I agree wholeheartedly with that.

@Ashley McC

I’m not disagreeing with that. However I’ve seen the argument raised before in which the underlining premise was that RDR shouldn’t have pushed forward because JKR’s book was for charity, and that really has nothing to do with the suit. So my apologies – I have no issues with correcting someone (so long as it’s polite!) however, I do take issue with people saying that RDR shouldn’t publish the book just because JKR is doing hers for charity. RDR can do whatever he wants, so long as its found to be legal.

@anonymouse

The problem is, The Lexicon doesn’t always have proper citations. JKR has always been for fandom. Heck its what keeps HP going. People wouldn’t want HP movies and to keep the books going if it weren’t for a fan base. All creators want a fan base. No because of money but because it means that what they are doing is being liked by someone other than them. The Lexicon is using her information in a way that is not appropriate in any circumstance.

This is a hard case for all of us on this site because we love HP and most of us love Jo. While I’ve never been to the lexicon site, I’m sure lots of you all have and loved it. But the bottom line is that the way her material is used in the Lexicon is inappropriate. She stated in testimony that she has no problem with other companion books using her material – but its the way they use it.

I honestly have no problem with the Lexicon book. If it were done the way JKR approved of. Because without a doubt, she’s the person who has final say about anything. Do you think Warner Brothers makes any huge decisions without her? No. If you do you need to think again. She knows everything HP. It’s her world. She created it.

Thats the thing. She created Harry Potter. Jo Rowling created Harry Potter. No one else. She worked for 17 years to create that world. For someone else to come along and try to profit off of it without giving her credit, is no only disrespectful but illegal.

Thats what this case is about. Not that he wrote a companion book but the way he did it. Had he written the book and credited her, given more of his own personal insight into the different entries and done research on the different things he was writing about (IE the history behind the spell “Priori Priori Incantatem”) then we wouldn’t be sitting her arguing about a law suit because there wouldn’t be one.

It’s all about the context of the book not the fact that there is one in existence.

And yes. We are all stressing the charity thing because I have a feeling that others feel the way I do. Stop claiming that Jo Rowling is a greedy little witch holed up in her giant castle in Britain scouring the Internet looking for ways to make more money. That’s just not her. You have no right to make judgements on her. You don’t know her. You don’t know her in any way shape or form and unless you hang out with her everyday and have tea and talk about the world – back off. Because it’s just plain mean. She’s doing this to protect herself, the world she created and all other authors out there. So please, be respectful.

“She has already penned the ignominious end of her own series and desperately needs to explain her poor choices in her own words”

::cough::bittersnapefan::cough::

@Jeanne

according to the testimony given SVA’s book is approximately 91% of Jo’s text ripped straight from the book! You need to go back and read more! Posted by Anthony on April 20, 2008 @ 11:57 PM

The problem with this assertion is that it appears Ms Rowling is attempting to copyright the entire english language. Some descriptions have to use certain adjectives and language or otherwise it doesn’t make sense.

“She has already penned the ignominious end of her own series and desperately needs to explain her poor choices in her own words”

::cough::bittersnapefan::cough:: Posted by beth on April 21, 2008 @ 01:38 AM

Those who see fault in this case are not all pissed off Snape fans. Its insulting to even suggest it. If the Judge rules in favour of RDR, are you going to suggest he was a Harmonian?

“Then you’re not a fan of HP or Jo and I don’t know why you’re even on a HP fan site!!!”

Really? Seeing both sides of the argument makes someone not a real fan of HP or Jo? I think that is ridiculous.

I know it is a sticky situation and ultimately the courts are going to have to battle it out, but I feel so bad for Steve. It seems that so much of the fandom has disassociated themselves from him. I don’t really have any opinion on the court case except that I feel that Steve is being treated horribly. How much of this is more RDR’s fault and how much of it is supposedly Steve’s fault? After he signed the contract is there anything he could do to back out?

As an english major, I have used reference books, which is what the Lexicon is supposed to be, so I don’t really see the problem. And before I get attacked, I do know what plagiarism is. It sounds like there may be mistakes about things not being quoted properly, but I think that could be fixed. He is not claiming that he wrote the HP books, but he did organize the information which I am sure took a great deal of time. I also don’t see it harming the sale of her encyclopedia. To even argue that is insane in my mind.

I also wonder if Jo wins the case, what will that mean for wizard rockers who sell their CDs? Their music is based on her novels, many about specific characters. What will that do? I think Steve has a point about that. In the interview he merely mentioned that other people make money off of JKR’s original work; that is a true statement. Some wizard rockers do make money off of JKR’s original ideas, they use their creative liberty to continue what JKR started, but that does not take away from the point that SVA made: people other than JKR have made money off of HP.