Advertisement

Oh this ought to be good…

What rubbish! First of all, what’s an “official” Harry Potter Podcast? And secondly, are they trying to paint SVA as some kind of victim? Why isn’t anyone calling him to take account and responsibility for his own actions in this mess? While I fully agree with the fair use doctrine, these “fair use experts” (especially those who testified in the trial) make me angry. I don’t see the fan community’s reaction the way described above. Rather, I think the fan community is, like Jo, feeling betrayed by one of their own, and by one who is a self-proclaimed defender of the online community’s rights. Yet he’s missing the mark completely in his arguments.

Sorry, At first glance I thought this was another something new, like he was stirring the pot more.

There should be an edit function on these :p

Ugh…this whole situation is so sad.

Why are we ‘disowning’ Steve Vander Ark?

We aren’t, this prick of a jounalist thinks we are! It’s been said that if he were to go to a fan conference that he wouldn’t be ‘shunned!’

Even though we have every right TO disown him, look at what he said about Melissa (this has already been posted on leaky, just moving it to this comment: “Melissa has done more to hurt me [Vander Ark] than Rowling,” Vander Ark said during a recess. “I can’t blame her for liking her status.” After all, he said, Rowling “is God and Melissa is her prophet.” He went on, “I am an outcast now. But I still consider myself a ‘Harry Potter’ fan.”

This whole trial is ridiculous, and this ‘Wu’ guy is getting on my nerves!

Tim Wu, apparently has used the HP fandom to provide himself with ammo for his conference. Write an incorrect article, get us commenting and then play the Pottercast tape, I believe out of context, to show how fandom feuds and turns on one of it’s own. I think we’ve been toyed with.

i don’t see why we’re on the defense. it seems pretty strieght forward what was said.

is it just me, or is Tim Wu milking jk rowling for publicity?

My only comment, on this “journalist” is : Par for the course. Perhaps Mr Wu can find a better position with the Globe or the Enquirer….isn’t it interesting that the members, of this panel [Gigi B. Sohn, in particular] seem to see things as they really are. Not as a sensationalist writer WANTS them to be. Perhaps they AUGHT to “force copyright issues to be taken much more seriously” And perhaps the type of thing, that SVA has done, will be less likely! [“official PotterCast”?? What’s with that?] It’s all tripe, really….As I said: perhaps Mr Wu could find a better home with the Globe or Enquirer. He’d fit right in!

Cathy: I think you’re right. Plus, official HP Podcast? Like JKR/WB are sponsoring it?

I wouldn’t welcome SVA back into the fold though. I mean if I went to a conference with him I wouldn’t protest his panels or anything, but I sure as heck wouldn’t attend. Not after how he’s treated the fandom and Jo.

Um folks…I hate to break it to you, but copyright / intellectual property concerns surrounding the Internet are becoming more and more important.

It’s not just about this lawsuit, there are a lot of questions about this kind of thing. I deal with them a lot. (I just had to take down a section of a client’s site because of intellectual property issues, actually.) And right now, this lawsuit is being watched carefully by those of us who do deal with intellectual property issues on a daily or weekly basis. Because I’ve decided I’m on the side of fairness in intellectual property, which probably means a solution that won’t please the fully-pro JKR / fully anti-SVR contingent.

Mr. Wu may not be involved in the HP universe or understand the motivations behind the “disowning” of SVA, but his observations come from a very specific place – intellectual property law. His bias and observations are going be towards these topics, obviously. Just as observations here are slanted towards pro JKR feeling.

And really – stop playing semantic games. If he played a podcast from this site, that is about as “official” as it gets, considering the support this site has from JKR and WB.

I wondered why Wu did the “fan feud” angle for the New Yorker. Now we know why and where he’s going with this, but I’m still confused.

He’s been arguing that copyright law, as currently written, is not flexible enough when it comes to Fair Use excemptions; that this inhibits creativity and violates 1st Amendment Rights to Free Speech. Or something like that.

But, I’m confused at just how this “fan feud” angle advances his legal arguments.

Is he arguing that there’s a natural social enforcement process that takes place no matter the law and, therefore, copyright-holders don’t need the law to enforce their rights?

@Kelly

I pretty much feel the same as you do. My opinion, and this is mine only, is that SVA has had visions of becoming an author and considers himself to be a HP celebrity. He has been thought of an authority. This in itself is just dandy but unfortunately SVA has gotten involved in a lawsuit and a media frenzy. Has he been contradicting himself constantly or is he a mega victim of misreporting? Or both? We’ll see what comes of it all very shortly. This has been very interesting to watch.

I’m confused. He was leading the panel, but the panel answered his questions about SVA? I thought the panel gave pretty good answers. Or am I confused about this?

God, not this guy again!

From the article: “Wu’s question to the panel was, ‘Why are Harry Potter fans disowning Vander Ark?’ The panel’s answer was that the fan community needs to disassociate itself from anyone who goes too far in appropriating creative content for fear that their own access to that content might dry up.”

I think Wu’s question is legitimate and interesting. Some (tho’ not all) Potter fans clearly are “disowning” SVA, saying that he can’t be a “true fan” given what he’s done. It is interesting to wonder why those fans have been driven to make those statements. The panel’s ultimate answer was, apparently, “fear”— fear that our “access” to the creative content of the series (or of future series, etc.) will “dry up” (presumably due to reactionary, blanket litigiousness) if RDR wins. I think it’s a gross oversimplification (if not an outright falsehood) to say that John and Sue’s comments on PotterCast (the ones quoted and misattributed in the New Yorker) were based on fear. But I also can’t deny that “What Will Happen if RDR Wins” is something that comes up often in many of the more reasonable discussions I’ve seen and heard at Leaky.

I feel as though nobody will really “disown” anyone else in this community, because I think that requires a certain lack of forgiveness and understanding. I hope that we have learned something from Jo’s books, specifically from Dumbledore in how he treated Snape. We might not have to agree with what Vander Ark’s publishers are doing, but I really think “disown” is a strong word.

Also, I really feel like using the word “disown” comes with so many emotional feelings. I think semantics hold such power in our thinking and our assessment of situations and we don’t give them another thought. I really hope this trial can be presented in a fair way, without using loaded words like “disown”.

I found the conference reportage on econtent curious. The copyright lawyers didn’t seem to be willing to buy into Tim Wu’s leading questions. And later, few were willing to call for a complete overhaul of copyright law. What amused me is how Suzanne Vega was there and spoke and was told that the CCC appreciated her views but she just didn’t “get it”. (Well, that’s how I interpreted it.) I’d love to hear what Suzanne Vega had to say—I know Natalie Merchant isn’t impressed with internet piracy.

I wonder if they used a Mugglecast or a Pottercast during the panel. Maybe the Mugglecast boys did use the words “banish” etc? I dunno.

To clarify my last post: By “more reasonable discussions,” I meant “more reasonable than others I’ve seen and heard.” I did NOT mean to imply that the discussions on PotterCast were unreasonable!