http://www.leakylounge.com/WB-JKR-vs-RDR-SVA-Part-1-t61169.html&st=480&start=486

Here’s a link to a post from MaraudingDon with links to the court transcripts.

You know I’m getting sick and tired of people coming on here to simply attack the fans who support Jo. And to generalise us all as some sort of “mob” you’ve got it wrong!! Majority of us have never been personal about SVA. We have shown our disagreement, and give arguement to back it up. I won’t deny there has been some who have been insulting towards SVA, but that is only a small group of people, and I don’t nor ever will condone it.

@Gabs, thank you. Nice to know that there are others who think along the same lines.

Wow, he is so contridicting himself in this interview…Playing oh poor me I did nothing wrong and want to fix this? IF that was the case he WOULD have just dropped the idea months and months ago. But no he pushed forward and here they are now. Jo has every right to want to stop this from happening. This is her work not Steve’s. During his testimony he played “dumb” like he didn’t know about anything…now he is very confident isnt he? Stating that he knew how this was going to go down…really? then why didnt you say everything you just said to the BBC to the Lawyers? Sad sad day in the potter world.

@ carly, or anyone who has heard about this bit:

carly writes, “Borders and Barnes & Noble have decided not to sell the Lexicon”

i was geeked to see that! but i can’t find any conclusive articles that state this fact. does anyone else know about this? i really, really hope it’s true. i think it marks a very ethical standpoint for major corporations to exhibit… something that doesn’t happen very often, at that! if anyone has read about this decision on their part, please, do tell more.

I’m on Jo side because I think she’s right. Not because I like her books, although I do. I too think it sounds a bit fanatic and worrisome if you say Jo is right, simply because she’s the author. One has to think for oneself and don’t accept things blindly. But agreeing isn’t necessarily worshipping. We can think for ourselves.

At the same time I find it a bit weird one can like the books while disregarding the author. After all, it’s a part of Jo in her book, in a way they’re inseparable. Without Jo no HP and certainly no HP in the kind of way she has written it. You may not have to like her, but you can at least respect her and respect what she has accomplished and leave her creations be.

But anyway, the vilifying against SVA, the comments about his job, about his contradictive statements, is to point out that he’s not the David RDR claims him to be. They’re playing us for a fool and we’re genuinely upset. We’re only refuting their statements. If I don’t mention any faults of JKR it’s because I don’t see any. So far she hasn’t said any contradictive statements. I haven’t caught her on a lie yet. She hasn’t said she’s greedy. You’re assuming she’s greedy. Fact is SVA does change his story, he once said that using Jo’s work would be copyright infringement. All of a sudden it’s not, or at least questionable? However, is all this of any relevance to the case. No. But if you’re going to say things we’re allowed to respond.

JKR’s accusing RDR of copyright infringements, as an intellectual property owner, is well within her right. I don’t know if she’s greedy. But if I was a writer I would sue SVA and RDR too, purely because they’ve taken my work. That’s got nothing to do with greed. Or is considering belongings to be your own greedy? If I would be calling anyone greedy it would be the defendants for using my work for their own benefits. Whether JKR is driven by greed or not is irrelevant. What matters, if taking a substantial amount of non-original work could be considered fair use. I.e. is the infringement allowable? If JKR likes to build a theme park and make money, let her. It’s her choice. If you think that’s greedy, that’s your opinion. But that still doesn’t change the fact that the key point is if taking a big amount of JKR work could be considered fair use or not.

I can’t find an argument for SVA’s case. Pointing at others for doing the same is not defence. It only reveals how many more are wrong, and even that’s dubious. I think wizard rock and websites have got a higher chance of being fair use, because of their transformative nature and input of their own. You can’t compare a book which take literal things from somebody else’s work, with a website who produces HP news. If a website takes one out of 100, then the book takes 80. There is a difference in the way other people are making money of JKR money. Are they both exploiting HP, yes. But some crimes are more evident and hit you hard. Other crimes are neglectable, still wrong but no point in pursuing. However I do get what SVA is saying. You can’t say SVA is the only one who is wrong. But that doesn’t make it right either. It only means others are wrong as well. SVA just hit JKR a bit harder than others and she noticed. That’s where she draw the line. And I think it’s quite an acceptable line. Don’t resell other people literal words, characters, events and plots (and I mean all of it) or at least have the decency to put in some own content.

I wouldn’t concern myself with the possibility of JKR not writing The Scottish Book. Don’t worry, she’ll write it. Who knows how long it will be before it is actually on store shelves, but I have no doubt she’ll write it – no matter who wins this case. You can take that to the bank.

@Matt Barnes & Noble and Borders pulled there orders as stated in testimony. Go to the following link. It’s stated as one of the final statements in the post.

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/15/first-day-of-jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-trial

@ Gab and Pottershrink.

Tolerant people Unite! Hehe

i hope there will be some kind of settlement, so that both parties will not lose face.

sorry to come back upon PJB so late, and sorry to come back at all. the thing with jkr having been a ‘benefit cheat’ came up as an pseudonymous reader’s comment to marina hyde’s article in the guardian (i guess ‘PJB’ is not your true or full name). there is no left-wing conspiracy about calling jkr a benefit cheat because neither you nor i can know if the person who posted that would be left- or right-wing politically or something else in between.

jkr received social benefits while writing the first potter-books and caring for her baby daughter – that is part and parcel of her public biography since her first book was published. from social benefits to the beststeller lists, all of her own!

now in court she did not only call sva lazy and sloppy, she underscored how wrong the lexicon-book is by saying he took from her work, her hard work, her work for seventeen years, the work from the very hard times when she was on social benefits and had to make a choice between a carbon band for the type-writer and something to eat.

i do not know what type of social benefit jkr was receiving when living in edinburgh with her baby daughter, if it was some kind of maternity benefit or if it was more of an unemployment benefit i.e. are not able to find work or a benefit you receive when you literally have no resources e.g. are not able to work. neither do i know the british legislation. though in many european countries you are entitled to unemployment and similar benefits only if you do not work besides or just earn very small amounts of money. if you are working and not telling you are liable to e.g. pay the benefits back.

many unemployed or poor people all over europe are pestered by the social benefits bureaucracy if they earn only a cent more than they are allowed. writing a private diary while receiving social benefits would not be a problem – writing articles you get paid for would under some legislations, for sure. writing books you sell later on might be legally controversial under some social legislations, writing books you have a contract on and will be get paid for very much later might be legally fishy, writing books you sell very much later for millions might be legally ok but could make you want to explain.

so probably the poster mentioned had a point, and jo brought his / her comment upon herself by her very own doing when, in court, emphasizing and recalling her times when having little money which was according to her pr the time she would have received social benefits.

you see i do not quite understand why there are such emotions between jkr and sva about this, tears shed in court etc – neither do i want to know all about the background, i do not like tragedies and i do not like people taking sides in the way Jeanne gave the right name. i spent many hours reading the hp-books and re-reading them and checking about them on the lexicon-site and from time to time on the leaky-site as well.

and after all, what’s wrong with being a little bit left-wing and starting liberation fronts for domestic workers – should be better than being like dolores umbridge and claiming authorisation for everything?

The Irony of the whole thing is that anyone with a printer can just go to the Lexicon and basically print themselves what is basically a copy of the book. As long as we do it for personal use, Warner Bros can’t touch us. Not that I agree that we should …

This thing isn’t really about Vander Ark at all. It is about NAFTA Chapter 11 and Warner Bros asserting their control over their “intellectual property” rights. It is a test case. The internet is largely unregulated, which means that laws that cover print and other media don’t apply to the internet yet. What is at issue is what happens when one transfers information from an unregulated medium (ie the internet) to a more regulated medium (ie books). What is at stake is both what laws media giants, such as Warner Bros should be lobbying in new laws, and whether their “intellectual property” rights extend to stuff that was originally available to all for free.

JKR still profits from her books – whether the profits go to getting Jessica a new bike or for one of the charities close to JKR’s heart. However, Warner Bros can sue JKR over the contents of her encyclopedia if anything she puts in there endangers sale of the movie or merchandise (theme parks and reference books count as merchandise).

Under NAFTA Chapter 11, if JKR says, writes or does anything related to the HP series that cuts into Warner Bros profits, she can be sued. We all have our favourite HP book, though few of us would pick DH – yet Warner Bros is so happy with DH that they want to make two movies out of it (when, out of all the books, its plot is the easiest to fit into one movie).

Thus, JKR has to stick up for Warner Bros when it comes to HP – she is under their contract. In a way, this is a test case for JKR too – if Vander Ark wins, it means that JKR has more freedom to say, write and act than Warner Bros (and, possibly her own lawyers) have indicated.

From David B. Caruso, WPG Free Press, April 16, 2008, p. D2:

”... Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of all the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies.”

Aurora, JKR could not work because she could not find affordable child care. Someone has to look after Jessica while she worked – same for all single parents who work or go to school.

Molly Wobbles

Vander Ark had his hesitations about putting the Lexicon in book form and RDR talked him into it. As far as I can figure out, once he signed the contract with RDR, he is under legal obligation to produce the book. However, if the production of the book interferes with Warner Bros “intellectual property” rights, then he can’t publish it. In a way, both Warner Bros and RDR are fighting over who gets their way with Vander Ark.

This is a test case – which means that Warner Bros and RDR are using it to create legal precedent. Both are willing to take this to the Supreme court – so anyone who thinks this will be settled in a month is dead wrong.

Since the case is being tried in the US under US law, NAFTA Chapter 11 may apply.

Thank you to those posters who have been and continue to be polite to those of us with dissenting opinions. It is refreshing to not be subjected to “mob attack” on every front for a change; most threads here that I have read have not been so tolerant but rather have been so “Go Jo!” that they have precluded any other viewpoints.

@ siyrean, you make excellent points in your post. Thank you. I agree with most of them (except, I finish up on Steve’s side of the fence because I feel that the Lexicon entries that I am familiar with are by no means word-for-word copies or plagiarisms of JKR’s works. People keep quoting this 91% figure and I cannot see it. I believe that it was presented in court that way, by JKR’s side, but as someone said earlier, can she copyright the entire English language? How else can you write an index without using the source words? It is not written in the form of a fictional novel.)

@ Jeanne, you also make excellent observations. I agree with most of them as well. Greed is not always about the dollar figure (and mollywobbles23, surely you are kidding when you say we don’t know how much money JKR will make from the theme park and the second DH movie, implying that she has no monetary incentive there? No, you’re right, we don’t know an exact figure, but I think we can give a general educated approximate estimate of “one level boatload.” She has an incentive.)

I listened to this interview, and my out-loud observation was “Wow. What a gentleman.” He sounds polite, reasonable, thoughtful, and genuinely hopeful for a peaceable solution that makes everyone happy. I have not gotten the same impression from the other side; what I have heard there is what someone else described as a “threat” and which I would almost go further to call “emotional blackmail.” ‘So distressed about this that I may not write my Scottish Book after all?’ Please. I do not know either of the parties personally, as I suspect is the case with most posters here. But I do know the impression I get from the actions of each of them, and it is increasingly less positive of JKR, and more positive of SVA. (Not that that has any bearing on the legality of the situation or the outcome of the case, it’s just an observation on the radio interview.)

Thanks, vaudree, for the legal perspective. I think you are right. Certainly this is at finish a legal issue, not an emotional one, so whether “Jo rocks!” or “Steve rocks!” is irrelevant.

Oh, and I’ll be right next to Jeanne in line to buy a hard copy of the Lexicon book, if it gets published. No book boycotting for me, thanks.

@doritos: “Just a quick note to those who were discussing the job issue. I realize Melissa has asked us not to speculate…”

SVA wasn’t fired because he didn’t have a degree in Library Science; he was fired because the Christian school he worked for includes a morals clause in its employment contracts, and Steve violated it.

This isn’t speculation; it’s fact. Steve’s soon-to-be-ex-wife posted on another thread a few days ago, clarifying a number of issues: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/17/jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-trial-day-three-a-partial-settlement-reached-wsj-law-blogger-dan-slater-speaks-to-ip-expert/comments/8

Her posts are under the name ‘lrgh,’ in case you’re interested in her point of view.

@Altarielle: “I still dont get how people are complaining that it’s fine to buy Wrock CDs but not fine for Steve to publish this book. It’s the same reason why it’s fine for Mugglenet to publish a “What will Happen in Book 7” book and not fine for Steve to do the Lexicon.”

This has been discussed over and over again. I don’t imagine explaining it again will help, but what the hell—hope springs eternal…

Wrock is sufficiently original and transformative-and these are the important criteria-to be considered Fair Use. It’s inspired by JKR’s work, and makes reference to her characters and storylines, but Wrockers don’t copy directly from her and claim her work as their own. Also, because it’s music, not a book or film, it doesn’t directly compete with either JKR’s or WB’s commercial interests-they aren’t making Wrock, and Wrockers aren’t taking part of their market share. In the unlikely event JKR/WB ever decided to crack down on Wrockers, they could also make legitimate claims that their work is parody-which is protected under Fair Use.

Companion books such as Mugglenet’s also fall under Fair Use. A book of speculation on what would happen in Book 7, or one discussing the HP fan phenomenon, or a collection of critical essays are all sufficiently original. The writers were inspired by HP, but they developed their own thoughts about it and wrote about it from their own perspective. They aren’t just regurgitating plots, or summarizing the books, or paraphrasing JKR; they contain the authors’ original ideas, in their own words.

All of the unofficial HP encyclopedias and readers’ guides that have been published, even the lousy ones, also fall under Fair Use-and you can bet that their publishers cooperated when JKR’s people asked to see manuscripts and demanded changes. Most of the HP guides also include substantial original work and commentary-discussions of places, creatures, spells, and people that come from other sources, not just the HP books.

JKR has allowed a lot of HP encyclopedias and companion guides over the years—she’s clearly not averse to other people writing about her creation and making a bit of money from it. But those books do have to be substantially original, and their publishers have to make it clear that they are unauthorized/unofficial.

Where the Lexicon book fails under Fair Use is that it adds almost nothing original to JKR’s work; roughly 90% of the text is lifted straight from JKR’s work. There is little or no analysis. There is almost no new information added that expands on what is in the books (and according to JKR, what little is added is often wrong, such as the origins of ‘Alohomora’). Everything in it is cribbed straight from the books, and very often uses JKR’s own words, or such sloppy paraphrasing that they might as well be JKR’s own words.

It contains almost the entire contents of both Magical Beasts… and Quidditch Through the Ages, which means that anyone who buys the Lexicon book would have no need to buy either of JKR’s books—it damages the market for those two books.