Yup. I’m definitely a Harry Potter fan. erm… freak.

Judge Patterson was good. “You betchum, Red Ryder!”

If anyone recognizes that quote, (not from HP) you’ll have me dated.

OMT

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/kbreen.htm

Interesting character, Little Beaver.

Okay. I’ve read the transcripts, and one thing in particular stands out from day two.

RDR and SVA have argued that the Lexicon in book form is highly useful and worth selling for $24, and is a wonderful ‘ready-reference’ that shouldn’t be denied to the public. However, in SVA’s questioning, when asked about how he and his Lexicon team scanned JKR’s novels into electronic form, he claimed that they did not do this in order to cut and paste material, but did this because it was so much more efficient to look something up in the books in electronic form, rather than flipping through pages of the actual text. I’m a bit confused, therefore, as to why he and RDR seem to think that a book version of the Lexicon would be worthwhile, if researching things electronically on a computer is so much easier for those who need to look something up for a quick reference. In which case, we already have the free version of the Lexicon online for that. Of course, this is assuming that SVA and RDR are being honest that this isn’t about money, but about providing HP readers with something useful. Because, according to SVA, text is easier to sort through in electronic form anyways.

Got me p.f. Google does work wonders. I’ve used that phrase most of my life.

I don’t know if I’m unusual, given my age (65) within the HP fandom, but I surely have enjoyed every minute I’ve spent reading all things Potter. Including the above transcript.

I certainly hope Judge Patterson sees it JKR/WB’s way. Being so biased toward their case makes it difficult to see merit in RDR’s defense. I feel a settlement would be best, but what would it consist of? RDR not to publish the Lexicon in it’s present form? Have SVA go back and do the real work and research necessary to publish a non-infringing work? That would seem fair, but my take on Mr. Rapoport is the quick cash-in is what he deals in.

Without a settlement, regardless of the verdict at this level I think it will be appealed. It depends on how RDR’s resolve and reserves are.

We will, as always, just have to wait and see.

OMT

PS, I hope I live to see “The Scottish Book” in print.

OMT

Uhm, pf… Yes, it’s true I now have a crush on Judge Patterson… And, Ms. Jeri Johnson, too!

Of course, we all see into the transcripts what we want to see, but I don’t have the impression “he deflates Dean Johnson”... Not at all.

One of the arguments RDR’s side is using is that The Lexicon Book is a scholarly work and therefore should be allowed under Fair Use. She merely showed that it isn’t a “scholarly” as she knows it.

Me too can play that game. I’ve come up with a devious plan which will make the defendants proud. I’m going to put out my own reference guide. I’ll start with downloading the lexicon from the website or justia.com. With this action I’ve demonstrated a. I give no respect to people hard work. b. I’ve shown that as a member of the public when work is in the public, it’s off the public. c. I have no problems with using people’s kindness, generosity, sharing spirit and misfortune. (Warning; all kind deeds can and will be used against you) d. I didn’t break a sweat doing it. I just copy and paste, copy and paste. e. I will not claim this work is entirely mine. No I’ll give Jo and Steve some credit, also let’s not forget the other contributors to the lexicon who shall remain nameless and forgotten. The next step will be making a few changes so I can call it mine. I think I’ll put in an index to catalogue the lexicon. For example Harry Potter (characters p.?), bruise-healing paste (medical magic p.?). Next, I change the order. Instead of arranging alphabetically, I will catalogue mine in categories. With this new content I’m going to find a publish house to publish my work. Now if my indexicon gets sued I will have to call it a reference guide. The status as being a reference guide will give me the right to use pre-existing work largely. I will be referencing how SVA will be referencing. But in order for me to reference, I’m afraid I had to use a heavy amount of the lexicon itself. But this huge use of the lexicon is ok, because I intend to do so. Without it I can’t explain the lexicon. Eventually it will look like this: index Abbot, Mrs(characters p..) according to what SVA has learned from the HP books, Mrs Abbot was Hannah Abbots mother who was murdered by Death Eaters and found dead in the fall of 1996. SVA indicated he got this information from HBP chapter 11. What exact page SVA had in mind is not entirely clear. He might have used a hardcover or paperback version, American or Engl…. Now don’t go saying it wasn’t transformative, I’ve put in the index haven’t I. I’ve even created a new format, a reference guide to a reference guide. Hell I even put in some new info. Not to mention I didn’t copy or quoted. ( Compare Steve version: Abbott, Mrs. (d. 1996) Hannah’s mother. She was found dead in the fall of 1996, murdered by Death Eaters (HBP11)). There maybe some flaws in my plan, but I’m sure I can get the Stanford group to help stretch the interpretation of fair use a little more. In the lawsuit I will carefully avoid the words, copy, cut and paste, paraphrase, citation etc. Instead I will take every opportunity to use and stress the word reference. Because plagiarism is downright wrong, but it’s not plagiarism if you’re referencing. There is a difference you know (They have to change the dictionary after the case, referencing: to paraphrase or even copy, copyright protected work as an aid to the copyright protected work you paraphrased or copied from.) I’ll publish it for money, not for free, because the mugglenet book at least made 5 mln. I’m quite certain I can top that, especially if I get JKR and RDR+SVA to sue me. It’ll be great publicity. In addition to that I’ll go worldwide. I think I can get Canada, France and Italy in. 10.000 copies, that’s only good for a mini-state. You’ve got to think bigger, at least 1.000.000 worldwide. I’ll publish it on the day of the verdict. Again for the extra publicity, but most importantly to beat the lexicon book to the punch. This way I can completely milk the cow before others get near. All I’ve to do now is keep quiet, so I can launch my surprise attack. Finally I just sit back relax and watch the money come in. Oh no, I just broke the fourth fair use rule. Oh well, if they are willing to overlook rule number 3 then I’m sure they will overlook rule number 4. I am sure I can come up with something convincing like the indexicon is not meant to be a substitute, instead it’s meant as an explanation. I will not be practising on the same market as the lexicon. After all the lexicon is a reference guide, but the indexicon is a reference to a reference guide.

Thanks Leaky for publishing the transcripts. My observations on Day One:

Mr. Hammer has a bit of an attitude. He reminds me of the guy from Boston Legal who’s always saying “You’re a hoot, that’s what you are.” Or maybe a little bit like Alan Shore. I wonder if he did that in order to get JKR a bit flustered, because if so, he seems to have succeeded. He apparently irritated WB’s attorneys with his opening comment about “The man without whom none of us would be here…” That was unnecessary and probably designed to do just what it did, which was get their backs up. He needs to learn to stand near the podium and not interrupt.

Mr. Shallman doesn’t appear to me to be such a great attorney. He’s watched too much Perry Mason. “Isn’t that true?” and “Isn’t that so?” over and over and over. But unlike Hammer’s quirks, it did NOT do what it was designed to do. Rapoport did not back down; he answered only what was asked and did not get sidetracked. Rapoport was a good witness, it seemed to me, and furthermore it seemed to me that Shallman irritated the judge with the Perry Mason stuff and also with not being able to properly frame a question. The judge got so tired of it that at one point he even stepped in and asked Shallman’s question FOR him. Cendali, on the other hand, appeared to do a good job.

It was interesting to hear Rapoport’s testimony about WB’s attorney Ms. Cendali screaming at him over and over on the phone, particularly in light of the fact that a big part of their original filings prominently mentioned how “rude” they thought Rapoport was to them when he told them to print out a copy of the Lexicon themselves.

If I were Hammer, I would’ve asked JKR “Which is it – did he ‘wholesale copy’ your work, or did he get things wrong?” Because she’s claiming both, and they’re contradictory. She said that he copied every single thing from her work and that there’s nothing at all original there. If that were true, then surely there would be nothing “wrong” in the book, because it would be all her work, which by her definition makes it “right.” However, she seemed quite upset that the book is not written like she thinks it ought to be written, and that things are wrong in it. To me, that indicates it’s not ‘wholesale lifting’ (as she called it) of her work. It would have to be Steve’s original work if she claims it to be ‘wrong.’ In her effort to express her indignation, I think JKR wasn’t the best witness because she left some doors open, such as that one. She argues both sides of the coin a couple times: the book copies my entire work, but it doesn’t have enough information in it. (Huh? How could that be?) Plus the one where she stated that a Lexicon book definitely would have absolutely no use to anyone anywhere ever not-no-way-not-nohow, which she clearly can’t say. And that the Lexicon book does a terrible job, but yet it will cause people to not buy her books. (Huh? If it’s terrible, do you really think the consumer won’t look for a better one? Or not buy the terrible one to start with?) And her claim that if someone owns the Lexicon book, there’s no need to buy her books, because the entire story is contained in the Lexicon. (Seriously? Really, seriously? Even Reader’s Digest Condensed couldn’t get 4000+ pages down into 400.) She said at the start that she’d never testified in a court before, and you could really tell that was true.

Hammer fairly caught her out, I think, in the questioning about her lawyers writing the cease-and-desist letter to Mugglenet. He pointed out (rightly, it seems to me) that she seems to want to scare people from writing books that she even remotely thinks might possibly infringe on her (which she clearly couldn’t determine until after the book has been written) and her lawyers have successfully used some pretty strong-arm tactics with the threat letters to scare people off, and it seemed like they did it on their own without direct input from JKR (which still makes you wonder what might have happened if JKR and Steve had sat down at start and talked it through without there being lawyers and RDR involved.) The strong-arm worked on Mugglenet, it didn’t work on Roger Rapoport. Hammer made her look like she might “go Molly” on dictionary publishers next, because they use the same words that she used. (“Not my words, you B**!” LOL.)

All in all, just as a layman’s opinion, I’d have to give Day One to the defense.

I only skimmed through the transcripts, but there are some things that concerned me. 1. I felt that JKR was a bit too snarky for a trial. I know a lot of fans are cheering her for her comments, but I thought she went too far. 2. It bothers me that she seems to lambast SVA for using an A-Z format, apparently calling it lazy, but yet at the beginning of the trial she testifies that she’s going to use an A-Z format for her own encyclopedia. 3. I’m also bothered by her turnaround on the fan site award. Now she’s saying she only gave it to the Lexicon as an “A for effort”. So what does that mean for other sites that got the award? Are any of them actually good or is she just reneging on SVA’s site award? 4. I felt that the lawyer Ms. Cendali was sucking up to the judge with her continued comments about “Bleak House” LOL 5. On the other hand, I do like the judge and think he’s trying to be fair.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the HP books and had a generally good opinion of JKR before this. But some of the things from the trial really do bother me. I don’t believe it’s a clear-cut case at all.

I’m all for the book form of the HP Lexicon [b]IF[/b] it undergoes an extensive re-write to clean up quotations lifted directly from JKR’s text and to rewrite descriptions of the HP world using phrases and vocabulary that sufficiently distances itself from Jo’s phrasing (and maybe even incorporate some additional etymologies, comparisons to “real world” figures or mythologies, etc.). I honestly think JKR would have [i]approved[/i] a book exactly like that, had they (RDR) worked with her and her agents to look over SVA’s initial manuscript. NONE of these things happened, however, as far as I am able to discern from looking through the posted court documents (the intended HP Lexicon manuscript), following reports since last October on RDR’s and WB/JKR’s interaction, and now skimming through the trial transcripts. As the HP Lexicon book currently stands, though, I’d have to agree with Jo – with no offense meant to the HP Lexicon webstaff (I hope they get their cut) – at best, this looks like a “rough draft” of an A to Z reference, still requiring clear citations and clean up of phrasing and summarization into “original” descriptions.

Posted by MattyJM on April 24, 2008 @ 10:39 AM: SVA has authored a work that does not require the reader to own or read any of the novels or companion books to obtain the information they seek, it is all right there, alphabetised and slightly rearranged, in the Lexicon. To learn all about the Harry Potter universe, one no longer needs to own Ms Rowling’s books if they own a copy of the Lexicon. Certainly the worst example of this is the way that the creatures from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them are described in vivid detail in the online Lexicon.

I read about these fictional beasts through the online Lexicon before buying and reading Fantastic Beasts, and found that the amount of information that the Lexicon had left out was negligible. It had well and truly plundered Fantastic Beasts and presented the information for free online. I’m surprised Ms. Rowling didn’t take legal action then (no doubt she felt that the activity was still somewhat harmless as long as Mr. Vander Ark was not seeking to make profit off her own work). I daresay she regrets not doing so now.

I also happen to agree that the availability and completeness of this information through the online Lexicon could very well have been a factor in the comparatively lower sales of the companion books (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and Quidditch Through The Ages)[/i]

Ditto. I too read the online Lexicon quite a bit before buying any of JKR’s books (as I was borrowing them from friends and the library). I did find the website highly useful as a reminder of character names, places, items, spells, etc, but IMO, the Lexicon does not offer anything like JKR’s way of storytelling. But when it comes to the two companion books, the online (and book) Lexicon may be reaching too far (and may have to remove those entries entirely) as both books are patterned after reference books or textbooks. (Another reason why the HP Lexicon book would still require another re-write should it be allowed to publish.)

Sorry about the bad html usage in my above post.

I don’t mean to sound greedy, but did you by chance get a copy some pictures of the evidence?

Thanks so much Kristen and thanks to whoever the court reporter is! :)

Lexicons are fair use end of story…JKR will lose, and you will all look like idiots. oh wait you already do…

I’m a wizard hehehehe

“Babbling Banshees” and “Death Agers”... these Muggles trying to pronounce wizards names. They just don’t get it… Like Mr. Dursley saying Lord Voldythingy…

I was for the Lexicon when I saw it as a useful reference, but I had no idea that there were hundreds (literally) of entries about Quidditch and magical beasts taken directly from Rowling’s companion volumes. Those are A-Z format, so this is pure plagiarism, both in form, content, and purpose. It can’t be useful, because unless mentioned in the novels all Quidditch and magical creature details are purely for entertainment value. I had no idea he did this, and am shocked that he kept all those entries. The nerve!

I disagree with those who are totally against the Lexicon, though. I think they are being more Catholic than the Pope. My impression is that even Rowling doesn’t take that attitude (although I was disappointed by her testimony of “useful how?”) An A-Z format of information from her book could be very useful for readers. But it needs to be done the right way. I agree with the Spoiler part, for example. Some or most people won’t use a Lexicon the first time they’re reading the book, but I think it’s possible that some will. Your older sibling has all this reference material, and you’re just getting into Harry Potter. You come upon a name in the first chapter of the first book, and become curious about it, and you pick up that Lexicon. And it tells you everything about Sirius until his death. Talk about ruining things for you.

Now, I think it’d be cool if the Lexicon had three sections withing each entry for dealing with characters: nonspoiler, semi-spoiler, and spoiler, with warning signs of some sort (wouldn’t it be cool if there was a way to do spoiler tags in print? and then have a transparency of some sort that could make the writing appear…). The last sections would be there not to give plot summaries, but provide the most basic ready reference information. The nonspoiler section could have anticipatory information that whets the appetite, as well as a useful index: “Sirius Black, mentioned in passing by Hagrid in SS/PS, will become an important character in Book 3. Harry Potter will meet him and learn more about his family’s past. He will experience intense emotions in relationship with this character. Black also makes appearance in Book 4 in such and such chapters, and in Book 5 again Sirius will play a big role, being involved in a climactic scene towards the end.” Etc. And in the semi-spoiler section I would say things like: godfather of Harry Potter, member of the Marauders who goes by Padfoot and takes an Animagus dog shape. And maybe finally, there could be a third, very brief, very spoilerish section: Sirius dies.

When I think of all the possibilities…

Even if he wanted to be “comprehensive” (I mean, if someone reads somewhere something about Demiguises and knows it’s from Rowling but doesn’t remember a thing about them and doesn’t own the companion books, they could at least find out about this much, say: magical creature whose fur can be used to make invisible cloaks; described in detail in … (abbreviation for book here). But that’s the problem. It would suck if they had the Lexicon and not Rowling’s own books, right?

Actually, the “useful how” bit does fit perfectly and I agree with it as far as entries from Quidditch Through the Ages and Magical Creatures are concerned. I think only entries that can help us grasp the novel better are “useful,” so they would have to limit themselves to details mentioned in the novel or relative to its events/themes. Or, if it can be argued that these things might somehow illustrate something about the novel, the entries should be very brief, with a reference to where one can get for information.