Chasmosaur, I wholeheartedly agree. As literary scholar myself, I find the current situation a bit unnerving. I think that it is very interesting (and very telling), that, while I probobly generally disagree with you on the issue of intellectual property, we come to the same conclusion on this. I have always comedown on the side of allowing free use of ideas (barring fraud, etc.). I also am fearful of the effect of this suit on the field of bibliographic research in general. Thank you for the breath of fresh air.
@ Chasmosaur….
Thanks for your excellent comments. You put into words exactly what has been swimming around in my head as I’ve been reading the comments here.
omg not this guy again.
this is so confusin i dont know where its going, well when it is finally ova i will try and understand it but till tha time i will stay confused
@thefish -
I generally agree with you on the free use of ideas thing. I have admitted in previous posts on other articles I simply don’t know enough about the canon materials and how extensively SVA has used them to make an appropriate judgement.
If he’s over-used JKR’s published text and refuses to change it, then yes, he deserves to lose. If he hasn’t, then it’s a far murkier area where settlement and editing are called for. I definitely believe in authors retaining their rights (my aunt is a poet and author on a small scale), but this case is problematic from a precedent-setting aspect for any supplement works, whether they are lexicons or interpretive/expansion.
Thank you Chasmosaur.
The posts that you and a few others have undertaken, is appreciated by this librarian, who understands the complexity of copyright, intellectual property and the doctrine of fair-use, and appreciates the larger issues beyond Harry Potter.
this is a note to @ Chasmosaur wow what great comments i am still not fully sure the story but your cooments helped alot thanks
Chasmosaur, I appreciate your well thought out and interesting post. It was very classy and respectful. So thank you.
However, I’d like to argue a few things. First, most people find it inappropriate that Wu should feel the need to comment or write an article about (the New Yorker article) how the fandom feels about Steve Vander Ark since he is not a member of the fandom. Obviously, he is perfectly allowed to do it. Just because he’s not a member of the fandom, it doesn’t mean he can’t examine it. However, it just makes it difficult to consider him an authority on that matter. As for his opinion on copyright and intellectual property rights, obviously it’s impossible to argue the validity of this arguments since he has an expertise in the matter. We can still disagree with him, of course.
You also said, “If JKR/WB wins outright, it clears the way for authors to not allow anyone to write supplement, non-canon books to their worlds. ” This is a flawed argument. First, JKR is not arguing that fair use laws should change. She simply wants the current fair use laws to be applied with this book. There are also several books, which Jo mentions on her first day of testimony, that she enjoys. She is not out to end all supplemental books. She just wants this book to be better written (cited properly, add commentary, etc). Books like, “If Harry Potter Ran General Electric,” would not be targetted because it falls under fair use. The Lexicon, from where I stand, does not fall under the current laws. However, the only opinion that matters now is that of the Judge and any Appellate court in the future.
As for the future of other fandoms, I would argue that this is a huge reason why many fans are actually on JKR’s side. It is my belief that copyright holders, like Jo, have been very lenient towards most fan endeavors. However, copyright holders may have to crack down on some of them out of fear that they are giving them “implied license” to continue if RDR wins based on the implied license argument (JKR liked the website therefore she gave Steve rights to make it a book for profit). If RDR wins based on fair use only, not implied license, then I think everything will be okay. You just might see a lot of bad encyclopedia’s out there.
@Chasmosaur
I think it was my post you were referring to about wishing the author had “first shot” at producing an encyclopedia. I think it was on page 13 of the comment section of the other Tim Wu article. There was more to that comment in my original post than what you mentioned in your post, but nevermind.
I respect what you wrote in your post, but I wish you also addressed some of my other concerns/confusions that I had put in my previous post.
I wrote how the lexicon doesn’t seem to be “about” Harry Potter, since it is strictly direct reference to Harry Potter and is not commentary or analysis, but rather “represents” Harry Potter – since it is taking its entries directly from the original material without altering it (for the most part).
I mentioned before how I can see how this book could have worth as a printed text, but since it “represents” Harry Potter, I don’t understand why this wouldn’t need to be licensed. This is what I am most confused about – and don’t recall anyone else bringing this up. Is it because it is a book and not some other item like a board game, it wouldn’t be treated like any other piece of merchandise… which has to be licensed?
My problem with all of this is the same one Melissa expressed on PotterCast, and runs rampant throughout the media these days… a lack of journalistic integrity and an honest, objective reporting of events. This is wide spread, and everywhere you look. Anyone trying to “raise the bar”, so to speak, gets attacked.
It’s a scary state of affairs when the Media often intentionally misguides the public for ratings and or other “agenda” (one can only guess).
I always remember Ben Franklin’s statement that he’d rather have a free media than a democracy.
My main comment here is directed at Leaky, and is basically applause for their efforts in holding to a standard that I truly admire.
@mollywobble
I see where you’re coming from on the arguments on Tim Wu – he’s not an expert on the HP Fandom (and FWIW, I did think his arguments were kinda odd, but he was probably looking for a different spin than everything else out there – you have to admit he provided that). But thank you for seeing where I’m coming from. Let’s just say we both agree he is an expert in his own field, but he’s tangential to this experience :)
And again, I’m just not familiar enough with the canon to know how good or bad the HPL is – I’m totally willing to admit it could be rubbish and poorly executed, which I don’t condone. So if you’re gonna do something of this scale, you need to do it right. Obviously, SVA hasn’t on some level, large or small. I just don’t want to see one bad book or bad lawsuit set a legal precedent that can be manipulated negatively down the line against legitimate reference and analysis books.
And I understand that JKR doesn’t want Fair Use Laws to change, but that doesn’t change the fact that they may very well change because of this lawsuit (not that the laws obviously don’t need some fine tuning). You seem to perceive that as well (i.e. – fair use vs. implied license).
Because her intentions really are besides the point – what’s that quote about roads and intentions? ;) (Not really maligning here, just using hyperbole…)
I’ve said previously I feel bad for Judge Patterson – he’s in between a rock and a hard place. There’s good and bad points on both sides, and it all really comes down to the ruling and interpretation against current standards (which is what makes lawsuits infuriating – it’s about what’s on the books, not what logically makes sense). Settlement makes more sense, but I think both sides have taken too public a stand now for that to happen gracefully. It’s a shame.
@LadyDeath
Actually, I never read the comments on the original article, so it was a different one. So great minds think alike, obviously – who the other great mind is, I don’t know ;)
Your licensing questions are interesting, though, I hadn’t thought about that. Maybe that’s really what this is all about, since we know how charitable WB is ;)
And yes, I’ll agree – The Fourth Estate is sloppy, sloppy, sloppy these days. But that’s a whole ‘nother rant.
And on that note, I’d love to stay and chat all day (especially since I’m not being flamed – I was ready to don my asbestos underwear), but work is calling. Gotta launch some web sites and pay some bills so I can keep my Internet access….
Here, here Tani! Not only has this happened, but My husband has pointed out something else. Through all of this and the fact that there are 85+ comments about Mr Wu and SVA, SVA has achieved what he wanted: Publicity. Mr Wu has achieved what every journalist [and, basically that’s what he is] wants….PUBLICITY. Unfortunately, it is at the expense of those who have tried to be fair about the whole issue. He wound us up and let us go, knowing that they would recieve publicity…..yes, as someone said, earlier on” “We’ve been punked!” Jus as there is “freedom of speech”, there is also “freedom of the press” But I don’t think the “founding fathers” meant anything like this…..”Freedom Of Speech” means freedom to have your own opinions. It does not include [from my perspective, of course] doing intentional harm to others. “Freedom Of The Press” means [also, from MY perspective] write what you want, but not I think, taking someone else’s work as your own, and intentionally mis representing statements made by others. How very sad and just plain wrong. Melissa, Sue and the rest of the Leaky Staff…continue to do the job you do. You are fair minded and open. Thank you.
@ Chasmosaur
My thoughts in your words! ( a copyright infringement issue, heh? D:)
I agree with you, it’d be serious blow-up for any reaserch book if JKR is going to win this case. The lexicons are not for adding something creative, they are for factually correct notations and informations. They must be “taking too much and adding too little” – it’s their nature.
Chasmosaur, I think you and I see things very similarly. I agree that it’s a shame on a variety of levels.
I wish RDR had been more willingly to make changes to the book early on, but they seemed dead set on getting this out in a timely manner. The question is now, would RDR even consider a settlement involving a rewrite? I doubt it. I think Steve would be willing to do it though (though his opinion on that changes weekly depending on who asks the questions).
@ Cynthia
Tim Wu and the many others that have written on the lawsuit’s effect on HP fandom is not based on reality. The inflammatory headlines followed by nonsensical paragraphs about David & Goliath or if they know the books at all, Harry & Voldemort. ( I think at best these articles are “Skeeterisms”.) Some of the fans have been quite upset but I do believe a great number of them are young – these are, after all, books that are read by children and adults.
However, a huge portion of the fandom has examined every minute detail of the legal documents, media information provided, debated the details and had intelligent ideas and discussions about copyright issues. Young and old have participatted. It has been an enlightening, educating, sometimes enraging process. In my opinion this is a perfect example of how the Harry Potter series has joined the generations. To make it as simple as “fandom savaging and eating one of their own” is cheap, lazy and insulting.