The Chicago Tribune speaks to Roger Rapoport of RDR Books, the publishing company that is involved in a legal battle against JK Rowling and Warner Brothers over the rights to publish a book version of the HP Lexicon website.
Not a Potter fan, Mr. Rapoport was unfamiliar with the Lexicon website until he saw a newspaper profile on Vander Ark in July 2007.
“I couldn’t understand why this book hadn’t been published yet,” he said.
Rapoport is reportedly unworried about the outcome of the trial, having been told by his attorneys that “no court has ever ruled that the writer of a fictional work is the only person who can write about that book.”
According to the article, Rapoport’s has received free legal help from Stanford University Law School’s Fair Use Project. Donations to his Right to Write Foundation (formed, according to its mission statement, as “an educational repository and clearinghouse for the 21st century freedom of expression and “fair use” issues writers and publishers encounter when moving between the worlds of print, internet, film, the fine arts and new media”) have further offset costs.
Rapoport was asked about JKR’s statement from the stand of “I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide, never ever. Do your book, but, please, change it so it does not take as much of my work.”
””That opportunity was never presented to us,” he said, his eyes flashing with anger. “The only thing they said [in the lawyer letters and pretrial discussions] was: ‘Will you stop the book?’”
Tribune article author Patrick Reardon also speaks to Steve Vander Ark, creator of the Lexicon site and main author of the Lexicon book.
“During a telephone interview from London, where he moved earlier this year to write other Potter-related books, Vander Ark said he was “devastated” when Rowling’s lawsuit was filed against RDR books, even though he wasn’t named as a defendant. “We certainly had no intention of doing something which would hurt her feelings,” Vander Ark said.”
The article reports that Vander Ark has received “nasty emails” since the lawsuit became public.
“It was disheartening how quickly people were more than happy to turn on me,” Vander Ark said.
I don’t think any of us here, whether on Jo’s side or RDR’s side thinks that any of our discussion is going to affect the case in any way. But, if it helps us understand it and we enjoy the discussion, what harm is in it? It’s certainly more fruitful than your ad hominem and endless claims that we only are on Jo’s side because we love her and her books. Frankly, I think you are the one wasting your time and not us.
You know, one of the most amazingly hypocritical thing about all of this is that so much of Jo’s work is borrowed from other stories. From mythology, to Roald Dahl, to the very names she took from phone directories. Come on people, it’s a Lexicon, not a new book. Is anyone going to read this in place of the real books? If you don’t like it, just don’t buy it. Your mean spiritedness is very Slytherin-like. Move on.
Just look at the comments on the very first page “of course we turned on him, he went against Jo.” Does that sound like someone who has carefully analyzed the legal aspects of the case? “He went against Jo.” That is the great crime that SVA committed.
If Rowling called a press conference today and announced that she had concluded that SVA had every legal right to publish the Lexicon, she would just like him not to do so – would your opinion change one whit? Honestly?
What does the jerk think? we are just gonna go along with him and not disagree? SVA has no clue as to the HP fandom if he thought we would be ok with this.
THIS Rapport guy is a jerk too. Jo is just upset that SVA is using actual parts of her books. if he changed it it would be better. so dont talk about what you dont know/understand.
I wasn’t sure what to think about this case until I read that the lexicon book contains almost all of the entries from the Fantastic Beasts book and the Quidditch book, just rearranged and integrated into the A-Z format of the lexicon. Pathetic.
“Just look at the comments on the very first page “of course we turned on him, he went against Jo.” Does that sound like someone who has carefully analyzed the legal aspects of the case?”
Posted by aloyalsheep on May 05, 2008 @ 10:01 AM
Well your main argument is to call everyone “sheep” so what are you complaining about?
“If Rowling called a press conference today and announced that she had concluded that SVA had every legal right to publish the Lexicon, she would just like him not to do so – would your opinion change one whit? Honestly?”
Posted by aloyalsheep on May 05, 2008 @ 10:01 AM
If RDR called a press conference today to say they were pulling the Lexicon, would it change the opinion of anyone on their side? Better yet, if pigs had wings, how would we catch them to make bacon?
Bekkah
By the by, if RDR and SVA win, I will picket the several bookstores in my area, and let anyone who even looks at buying it, that, why spend $29.95, when you can glean the information off the net, for free?[/b]
And I will take great pleasure in finding any picketed book store, marching to by 10 copies, then return outside and hand them out to passersby while explaining my motivation to them. It will be a real pleasure!
Let the lawyers and the judges hash out the illegalities. The HP fandom is making a massive, collective fool of itself.[/b]
@Bekkah
By the by, if RDR and SVA win, I will picket the several bookstores in my area, and let anyone who even looks at buying it, that, why spend $29.95, when you can glean the information off the net, for free?
AND I WILL TAKE GREAT PLEASURE IN FINDING ANY PICKETED BOOKSTORE, MARCHING IN TO BUY 10 COPIES THEN RETURN OUTSIDE TO HAND THEM OUT TO RANDOM PASSERSBY WHILD EXPLAINING MY MOTIVATION TO THEM. IT WILL BE A REAL PLEASURE!
@aloyalsheep
Let the lawyers and the judges hash out the illegalities. The HP fandom is making a massive, collective fool of itself.[/b]
Just like some people on Jo’s side are doing it just because she’s Jo, there are those on RDR’s side who are only on that side because they believe the misinformation that the media is giving them or they’re frighteningly loyal to SVA. Then there are those on both sides who have read the facts and came to their own decisions. To say we’re all like the former is a fallacy and a cheap argument that makes those like aloyalsheep look like fools for not realizing that.
Jean, I’m sorry you’ll be out over 200 bucks for something you can get for free.
@ Vivian:
’’Gods bless Vander Ark for having the courage to stand up to her.’‘
Oh no you didnt.
One thing you must know is that sva did nothing to stand up to her. Ripping off someone elses work, is not standing up to anything.
Besides, what is this teenage rebellion?
’’Vander Ark and co. put in a huge amount of work themselves. They gave us a coherent timeline, something JKR never did,’‘
Maybe Jo wanted us to do that. And that doesnt mean that she wanted us to think and then sell it to make money.
Would you have disliked the books more if you didnt have a ‘coherent timeline’’?
You could have probably have made a coherent timeline yourself, and there are many fans out there who did.
I find it that sometimes its alot more fun and your creative side comes out when you do things yourself.
Do NOT think for a minute that sva is the only one with enough knowledge to do an online lexicon.
If people buy the lexicon, they are pretty much throwing away their money. Do something more useful and donate your money to charity instead.
[ USEFULNESS OF ALPHABETICAL ORDER BASED ON NEED AND METHODOLOGY]
PROPOSE THAT: It is useful to go the letter “A” to find new useful, expanded, and different information about “Abbott” as it relates to Harry Potter, but not useful to go to the letter “A” to find information that already exists within the pages of Harry Potter, because, for instance, it would be more useful to index the page numbers of all the instances of “Abbott” within Harry Potter.
EXAMPLE #1: The Linear Progression of the Letter “A”
1. The letter “A,” stands individually and singular;
2. Points to “Abbott,” because it begins with the letter “A,”
3. “Abbott” may, generally, indicate a name or label for a variety of person, places, or things with the name or label “Abbott”;
4. “Abbott” ultimately indicates the last name for characters created by J. K. Rowling, in her series of books about Harry Potter;
5. [“Input words here” to describe the usage or importance of the last name “Abbott” as it relates to Harry Potter] OR REVERSED
6. [“Input words here”] to describe the usage or importance of the last name “Abbott” as it relates to Harry Potter;
5. “Abbott” ultimately indicates the last name for characters created by J. K. Rowling in her series of books about Harry Potter;
4. “Abbott” may generally indicate a name or label for a variety of person, places, or things with the name or label “Abbott”;
3. “Abbott begins with the letter “A”;
2. The letter “A” points to “Abbott”;
1. The letter “A” as it stands individually and singular.
EXAMPLE #2: The Letter “A” as a Category
A.) The letter “A” could stand for a category of things that fall under the letter “A,” which is not necessarily useful in itself.
B. ) If the letter “A” is underneath another category, for instance, “Characters Within the Harry Potter Books,” which contains a subcategory “Characters Within Deathly Hollows,” which contains another subcategory “Characters Within Chapter 16”, then another subcategory “Characters Within Chapter 16 That Start With The Letter “A,” that may not be helpful either, because it would be much simpler to categorize into “Characters That Start With The Letter “A,” (especially those that appear in other books, and other chapters, more than once) in a broader manner;
C.) PROPOSED MANNER OF CATEGORIZATION: Maybe “Characters Within the Harry Potter Books” then subcategorize into “Characters That start With The Letter “A”” The information about “Abbott” would fall under “Characters That Start With The Letter “A.” So, “Abbott” would become a further subcategory labeled “the Character Abbott.” Then further subcategories would be “The Harry Potter Books that contain “Abbott,” then “The Chapters of the Book that Contain “Abbott”, and further “Page numbers that contain “Abbott.”
EXAMPLE #3: Influence of the Letter “A” as a Category Itself
Just for kicks, subtract the category “Characters That Start With the Letter “A” so that you are left with “Characters Within the Harry Potter Books” “the Character Abbott” “The Harry Potter Books that contain “Abbott” and “The Chapters of the Book that Contain “Abbott,” then “Page numbers that contain “Abbott.”
FROM:
CHARACTERS WITHIN THE HARRY POTTER BOOKSCHARACTERS THAT START WITH THE LETTER “A”
THE CHARACTER “ABBOTT”
HARRY POTTER BOOKS THAT CONTAIN “ABBOTT”
THE CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK THAT CONTAIN “ABBOTT”
PAGE NUMBERS THAT CONTAIN “ABBOTT”
TO:
CHARACTERS WITHIN THE HARRY POTTER BOOKSTHE CHARACTER “ABBOTT”
HARRY POTTER BOOKS THAT CONTAIN “ABBOTT”
THE CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK THAT CONTAIN “ABBOTT”
PAGE NUMBERS THAT CONTAIN “ABBOTT”
Using a “PAGE NUMBERS” category as a start category, one could sort to list all of the characters on a “PAGE”. Using a “CHAPTER” as a start category, one could sort to list all of the characters in a “CHAPTER.” Using a “SPECIFIC HARRY POTTER BOOK” start category, one could sort to list all of the characters in a “SPECIFIC BOOK.” Albeit, all “CHARACTERS” are already listed in the “SPECIFIC HARRY POTTER BOOK” as a whole; further listed in a “CHAPTER”; further listed on a “PAGE” to create the story. It appears that the category “CHARACTERS THAT START WITH THE LETTER “A” does little to differentiate what “categories” are naturally created as the author is creating the book itself.
EXAMPLE #4: Indexing as an Alternative to Categorizing the Letter “A”
A useful tool might be, plain and simple, the indication, (“Abbott” character: See Deathly Hollows, pgs. 4, 6, 7, 9, 12). Put the indication on an index card of sorts, and now you are “indexing.” One could take the “index” as a whole, entry upon entry, and place it in some logical order, let’s say, according to the first or second letter of the entry, and it becomes easier to find, when listed, through a way of ordering things called “Alphabetical Order”. In the case of indexing, “Categorizing the Letter “A”” becomes a secondary thing of importance. As illustrated in many books about “Where does the Alphabet come from?” and the like, (for example see: Feldman, David, “Imponderables: The Solution to the Mysteries of Everyday Life,” William Morrow Company, 1st Edition, 1986; a book that, among other things, describes the origins of the alphabet and the things that drive “alphabetical order”) it seems that the act of alphabetizing is more language based, and naturally occurring, because society as a whole uses that way of ordering as public domain. So, in the case of going to the letter “A” to find information that already exists within the pages of Harry Potter, it would be more useful to FIRST index the page numbers of all the instances of “things that need to be known” within Harry Potter, such as “Abbott,” then SECOND, place those “things that need to be known” into “alphabetical order,” if that is what one finds one needs to do.
“Everytime I see the word “sycophant” it is so obvious where the rant is going. A great many posters here are well read, educated, intelligent people that have researched the court documents provided, analyzed them, discussed them and come to their own conclusions. You may not agree with them but it doesn’t mean their opinions have no value.”—Cathy
Hey, I never said there are no well read, educated, intelligent sycophants.
The key phrase in the excerpt you quoted was “come to their own conclusions.” A sycophant doesn’t do that. As hard as it obviously is for you to accept, some people disagree with you on the issues alone, with no higher guidance.
We get it – Vivian thinks anyone pro-JKR is a sycophant. Got it, crossed it off my list and put a checkmark by it.
And most everyone else disagrees with him. Similar list and checkbox notations.
Can we just agree that JKR does seem to have generated a cult of personality/hero (okay, heroine) worship vibe that’s generated a portion of dogma and leave it at that? And that not everyone finds it admirable?
Because honestly, this whole back and forth thing is just boring.
@aloyalsheep:
I don’t think any of us here, whether on Jo’s side or RDR’s side thinks that any of our discussion is going to affect the case in any way. But, if it helps us understand it and we enjoy the discussion, what harm is in it? It’s certainly more fruitful than your ad hominem and endless claims that we only are on Jo’s side because we love her and her books. Frankly, I think you are the one wasting your time and not us.