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!
@ Arithmancer
Gotcha….it’s difficult to write instead of speaking, have to be so careful and politically correct. Easy to be misunderstood (OMG there I go making excuses for journalists and bloggers.)
You are right “What will happen if RDR wins?” or for that matter loses? With the long list of similar court cases challenging copyright laws (I had no idea just how many until paying attention to this one) and the internet it is difficult to believe that there won’t be fall out either way.
I KNEW someone was doing “Negative Commentary Experiments”!
(See Posting by Copperhead on May 06, 2008 @ 5:58 p.m. to the article: JKR/WB vs. RDR Books: “Fan Feud”)
OK, I’m typing this without reading anyone else’s comments (trying to think for myself here).
I think the panel’s conclusion was not quite correct. I am not against SVA’s position out of “fear” of anything. For the panel to say it that way is misleading, because they make it sound as if the fandom hopes for favorable treatment due to disowning SVA. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Disowning SVA is not going to gain anyone special access to creative content.
I believe that an RDR win is bad for fandoms, and at first I thought maybe SVA just didn’t think it through before signing the deal with RDR, but no, after he had months to think about it , he STILL came out attacking JKR and making self-serving characterizations of RDR’s position. I think his position is a selfish one and shows a disregard for what happens to anyone else. And at the same time he was trying to play the victim, which I felt was dishonest and in stark contrast to his public statements supporting his actions.
So these are the reasons I am against his position, not because I think “disowning” him will gain special access to creative content in and of itself.
@ Copperhead
Just read it again, you smelled the skunk way before I did. As interesting as all of this is I do find it to be a lot to take in. So many different perspectives and motives. Very astute of you.
Continuing my 10:11 PM thought.
Or, is he arguing that the copyright law controls fans’ emotional feelings and actions and, therefore, inhibits our creative expression?
Whatever he’s arguing this “fan feud” angle, while provocative, seems too simple to me. It ignores what different fans think being a fan means. It ignores love of Jo, the person.
It ignores the difference between amateur organic/tribute/celebration and professional work that is influenced by the original source.
I wish I could express this better.
It will be interesting to see how (or, if) this affects future artist/fan relationships and what is allowed online.
What is interesting to me after reading the article was that after someone brought up google being printed off as an encyclopedia the debate became heated. It is interesting because they mention, just like the jkr,wb/rdr trial, the wholesale copying of resources. Only then, in my opinion, was what the Harry Potter fans have been saying all along seem to be commented on. Why should one person profit from someone else’s work?! I wish the panel would have commented on that in regards to hp. Because, I believe, that is what the fandom of HP is really mad at SVA for. The wholesale copying of her work, and trying to make a profit off of it.
@ Cathy: Thanks for sympathizing with my frustrations and fears!
@ desertwind: I agree that Wu’s “fan feud” angle leaves a lot out. It’s pretty clear from the New Yorker article that he’s imposing this feud-driven narrative onto his view of the issue, with distorting results.
@Cathy,
I’m hoping that any other “negative” comments that we’ve read along the way were just the result of an experiment as well. I felt it around April 17th or 18th, and stated that it feels like “the Lord of the Rings, where one is asked to ‘speak Friend and enter,’ only to find goblins coming out of all points of the woodwork.” I’ve been sending out long and thought out commentary ever since to beat the devil.
Why is everyone attacking US?! The FANS haven’t done anything wrong!
At this stage of the story, I find it appalling that the idea that JKR took SVA to court still finds its way into these articles. RDR is the defendent not Steve. The fact that these articles keep getting this vital point WRONG speaks volumes towards whether they will get anything RIGHT.
HAS Steve been shunned from the fandom? I think not. Just read some of the comments in his favor on the Lexicon. There are fans who support him. I’m not one of them. Mostly because in my opinion, he’s got no leg to stand on, but also because he’s being a bit of an idiot. All his arguments sound like he’s grasping at straws to find SOMETHING that supports his case. To attack Melissa for her beliefs is just more of the same kind of tactic ffom him. But he doesn’t seem to see that it’s not helping his case. Some of the things he has actually written on the Lexicon comments indicates that he is, for lack of a better word, deluded.
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.