Advertisement

@mollywobbles23

I looked up Tim Wu’s bio as follows:

“Mainly, I am a professor at Columbia Law School – I am lucky to have such a fun job and great colleagues. I teach copyright and telecom. “

“In some of my spare time, I write for Slate Magazine (some here), on law, media, culture, and food (well, dumplings). I have also written for some other publications more as a pure freelancer, including The Washington Post Weekend, Forbes, Playboy, but writing for Slate is the most fun! “

“Finally, I’m involved in various other projects, usually related to alternative channels of content distribution. Many are run through the Columbia Program on Law & Technology. One example is Project Posner. Another is Altlaw, and another is Keep Your Copyrights. “

“My first book was “Who Controls the Internet” (with Jack Goldsmith).”

So he is well versed in law, copyright & writing. I think you are right, he just may have a different agenda.

@mollywobbles23: On his website, Tim Wu says that he is a professor at Columbia Law school who writes “in some of [his] spare time,” mostly for Slate. So, it seems he is a professor and on-the-side writer who is trained as a lawyer.

Thanks, steve-o! I like my name too. That part in HBP cracks me up and it’s adorable at the same time. I was 23 when I made my account here (I’m 25 now). But, the 23 works still because I’m also a LOST fan and 23 is one of the mystery numbers (4 8 15 16 23 42). Serendipity is my favorite force.

@Arithmancer:

I too respect Leaky. Anyone who thinks this site is biased should look at the media TLC has linked to. There has been one TLC post containing links to two pro-JKR articles and in that same time there have been like ten anti-JKR articles linked (that says more about the slant of the media in this case than anything, but again, never a word from Leaky about this). And this latest, the most personal and derogatory towards Leaky, is it hidden? Hell no, Leaky posts it in bold letters on the main page just like always.

And honestly, I think the lack of pro-JKR commentary in the media isn’t necessarily “bias,” I think there are a lot of people who are pro-JKR but they don’t want their names to get dragged into this, for which I can’t blame them, as well as the fact that, let’s face it, “David vs. Goliath” is going to sell more copies than “how the Lexicon stacks up against the four criteria for fair use”.

WWHHHHAAA!!! How come I’m not the teacher’s pet??

Actually, I’m most uncomfortable with Wu’s avoidance of the legal proceedings, to trivialize the argument to sniping within the HP fandom. Gives me flashbacks to the days when college kids in Star Trek red shirts and black pants were being vilified as fanatics and geeks. Except that now some fans are being elevated to prophet status-WOW! Is that better than being a geek? ;)

Then again, journalists have not had the best reputation for correct notation and attribution of the facts either, so perhaps that’s why he appears sympathetic to SVA.

I’m just making it up as go (or copying off someone else if it’s easier…)

Thanks, Cathy and Arithmancer for clearing that up. :-) If he’s a law professor, he most definitely has passed the bar. My best friend has a degree in Legal Assistant Studies and all her law professors were also lawyers or judges. He’s a commentator, not a journalist. He was present at the trial…sitting on RDR’s side with FUP, from what I understand.

That personal attack really must have hurt, Melissa. But like all low-blows, it deserves to be ignored.

I can’t believe he would say that. At least melissa’s book will be er own work and research into the fandom. SVA is really frustrating me!

When journalists write before knowing or even researching their facts, that in itself should be a crime. This Tim Wu has no clue what he is even talking about. He miss quoted Melissa and John and took things out of context. He then vilifies Melissa, with help from SVA (allegedly), as if she were Ms. Rowling’s pet. Melissa’s book is about the fandom of Harry Potter. She didn’t lift quotes directly from the books and if she did, I think she had the sense enough the cite them correctly! This entire article reeks of the media trying to start a war among the HP fans and I for one am more angered at the reporter than I am by anything that was allegedly said by anyone in the article itself. Mr. Wu needs a clue!!!!

I am a pure theorist. I like to think about the future. I think the ground work has been laid for a SVA best seller. SVA calls the epiloge of Deathly Hallows the “crapaloge” at the HP Conference following the release of Deathly Hallows. SVA claims in his book that JKR decides to go after him for this comment. He and his researchers have compilied many months of gathered material from the forums where any critic who dared to give a negative review of Deathly Hallows was attacked by the fans of Leaky and Mugglenet. The fans are split over their like and dislike of Deathly Hallows. Ask Red Hen about the personal attacks against her for her dislike of the book.

He claims the lawsuit was because of his crapaloge comment and not his book. He claims JKR wanted to "put him in his place." He claims that JKR got her loyal fans(through Melissa and Emerson) to attack him. These attacks are documented with many months of negative attacks on him including the death threats, etc. Many of you might be quoted in this book. Since he still seems to have some regard for JKR, I'm probably wrong about him accusing JKR of being the evil Mastermind behind these attacks. If the editors have their way, however, this accusation will be made.

It doesn’t matter who wins the lawsuit, who is right or wrong, or even if the accusations are true or false, the press will love this book. I smell a SVA best Seller in the works. Of course I will probably be as wrong about this as I was with my Harry Potter theories.

What better way can there be to get your name publicized than create controversy with misinformation. Seems the writers of these articles have been getting more attention than they could have ever dreamed of. Must fall under “no such thing as bad publicity”.

SVA’s comments are stright on acurate. It is a great shame that so many are willing to blindly follow when their muse makes a mistake. Many major authers have come out in defence of SVA with good reason, and they understand this better than most as they are actual published writers. How many here can lay that claim.

All SVA did was copy and paste, Melissa deserves her standing with jo

“Melissa has done more to hurt me than Rowling,” Vander Ark said during a recess.

Does this mean we start talking about Vander Ark’s personal life and WHO has HURT WHOM the most??

sorry…I know….. inflamatory…..but….honestly.

@paintball: That’s a very interesting theory. I can see it happening, too. (But, like you, I was wrong with lots of my Harry Potter theories…)

As others have pointed out, one of the strangest things about the New Yorker article is that it totally ignores the legal aspects of the dispute (despite being written by a law professor) and instead seems to support the narrative that paintball’s theory has Steve espousing: the story that Jo is suing him not because of the contents of his book but because he dared to raise himself to her level through his “sandbox” speech, etc. (Thence the central metaphor of the piece, with Jo as Athene, Melissa as her acolyte, and Steve as Ariadne.) Does this narrative have any reasonable basis at all? Did Jo know about the sandbox speech, etc., before deciding to sue?

oops, oops, Arachne, not Ariadne. Sorry!

ah, also I should stress that Jo is of course suing RDR and NOT suing Steve himself. But in the narrative of the New Yorker article, that’s a minor technicality.

Is Mr. Wu trying to tell us that J.K. Rowling is a goddess?

(I’ve always used the name ‘Athena’ online, but this is cracking me up)

If the goddess Athena existed, I wonder what she’d think about this.

It amazes me the way that, some of you are basically proving SVAs point about fansom. I mean, I keep hearing the same two points over and over:

1) VanderArk is an idiot for saying that Rowling is God to HP fans and Melissa is his prophet. 2) How DARE he speak that way about JKR and Melissa!!!!! Silence the infidel!!!!!!

In addition, he’s considered a horrible person for disrespecting the Sacred Writings (because he didn’t like the epilogue to DH? A lot of people didn’t like that. I did, but that’s just me), and for daring to disobey a Command from Above to cease and desist publication.

People, I don’t know Melissa, but I have to say everything I’ve heard gives me the idea that she’s intelligent and articulate enough to take care of herself. (The fact that she has published his allegation on her own website without comment suggests that she has a great deal more professional ethics, personal integrity, and self-confidence than VanderArk gives her credit for.) On the other hand, the way certain OTHER are reacting to some comments about her goes a long way towards proving his point about THEM.

And as for JKR—-after a decade of bad reviews from literary snobs, book burnings by American preachers, and probably a few disturbing letters form the cazy fans that every famous person gets) I think she can handle one disgruntled fan.

The point is, neither of these people needs the kind of defenders they’re getting on here.

If I were in his position, I would probably feel pretty abandoned as well. Of course, if it were me, I would never have BEEN in this position, because professional courtesy and a reasonable respect for JKR should have convinced me to stop publication when she asked him to. But the fact that he sees it differently does not make me hate the man. At this point, I feel very sorry for him.

“SVA’s comments are stright on acurate. It is a great shame that so many are willing to blindly follow when their muse makes a mistake. Many major authers have come out in defence of SVA with good reason, and they understand this better than most as they are actual published writers. How many here can lay that claim.”

Posted by Myrth on May 06, 2008 @ 04:32 PM

I don’t know who’s “blindly following” here. Those of us support Jo because we believe she is right and RDR is wrong. It’s as simple as that. Frankly, I think those that simply just say “oh, you’re just saying that because you’re a lemming” are saying that because they have nothing better to support their argument than to say that ours is based on blind loyalty. How about those of you who seem to be on RDR/SVA’s side in this case and are calling us lemmings, tell us why you support them using legal reasons and not ad hominem? Then, maybe some actual discussion could be had. As of now, most people here are falling straight into the media’s trap to pit us against each other. It’s exactly what they want.