Leaky Cauldron Summary of JKR/WB Filing, Feb. 27, 2008
Lucky Seven Hightlights (with a bit of Snark/SARCASM):
1. If a fan buys the Lexicon book now, they probably cannot afford to buy JKR's Scottish Book in ten years, and that is unfair and dangerous for commerce. All the fans who bought those millions of books last summer will never be able to save up $25.95 over the next ten years. Aren't we are all sitting here eating our gruel in poverty
2. The Lexicon book will make too much money, and that is unacceptable. 'Nuff Said. [/sarcasm]
3. When JKR gave the Lexicon the fan award, she didn't mean it was a "favorite" site. It was not a seal of approval. In light of this, those plaques in the trophy room mean that the winners are barely worthy in some undeserving way, and shouldn't take it seriously. I suggest that all the fan sites who won a place on the Shield of Doom should take down the bragging rights immediately since you might offend somebody important. [/sarcasm]
4. When JKR said she used the Lexicon to look things up, she meant only because she was out somewhere and didn't want to buy a copy of her own book - the one with details she couldn't remember. That's understandable. [/sarcasm]
5. Steve's website is too popular, with too many hits. If only he could go back and create something decidely unpopular, then they might let him publish his book. Unpopular books don't sell, so they are allowed. Popular books are a threat, and must be squelched. Ah, the free market economy! [/sarcasm]
6. The media think Steve is an "Expert," and that is not allowed. They should refer to him as "The Non-Expert." No replacement guidelines are given for the WB's definition of "Harry Potter Expert." Probably your name has to be J. K. Rowling, and you have to live in the City of Edinburgh. [/sarcasm]
7. In fact, anyone who disagrees with JKR's view of either the books or the copyright laws, does not deserve to be called a "fan" nor an "expert." The filing states that Steve is neither a true fan, nor an expert. So even if someone reads the books 2,000 times, memorizes it all, worships the books, and explains them to others ~ Non-Expert, Non-Fan. Let's all eat our humble pie on that one. [/sarcasm]
- Location:Bitterly Cold Night
- Mood:
staring - Music:Three Dog Night "Black and White"
Page Content
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
rattlesnakeroot- Jeanne Kimsey or SIP
- Harry Potter Network
Comments
But to me, what this case needs are more devil's advocates who are willing to say "wait a minute" and point out that the justice system works differently than fandom. Chanting the mantra of "JKR is Always Right" is not the answer to everything.
Hey, speak for yourself; I have neither of those things.
That said, I can definitely afford to purchase two books several years apart. Haven't most Potter fans already done that seven times? *koff*
Someone should point her to that study about HP being as addictive as cigarettes or whatever it was. She and her legal representation are out of their collective minds if they don't think that HP fandom would absolutely lap up both books. I think a sizable proportion would want to own both just for completion's sake. (I've only read "Quidditch" and "Fantastic Beasts" once or twice, because I just don't care that much, but I own them!)
But my point is that alot of fans have alot of things, and to say that they won't buy a book ten years from now when many of these teenagers will be grown with kids of their own is ludicrous. If anything, we have generations of kids now growing up with these books who will become "collectors" when they grow up, and will want whatever JKR writes in the future. She has to know that!
People will buy what they really want. I've never had much money either, my whole life. I have one child in college and another going off next year. I have one child with seven more years of school to go.
But books are one luxury my husband and I give ourselves because we are bibliophiles, and as you say - books can be addictive, and fandom can be addictive. My husband collects books about the Beatles, and that's his passion. I could never begrudge that money, and he never begrudges the money we spend on Harry Potter.
I think future fan spending on a nonexistent book is a very weak point in the case, and that's my point.
Jo, m'dear, you have already had a "severe alteration of author-fan relations" with this stunt you and WB are pulling.
And for anyone reading this who thinks I am a voic crying in the wilderness, I would refer them to one of the first news articles that came out right after the lawsuit was first posted last year:
From the LA Times, Dec 31, 2007
"For the sake of English letters, J.K. Rowling should let go. Harry Potter has finished school and is out making his way in the world; it's time for his progenitor to stop clinging. The phenomenally successful author is doing no favors to herself, her beloved creation or our culture by continuing to futz with the product and police her property against some of the muggles who made her rich.
. . . The legal action is petty, churlish and, from a business standpoint, probably ill-advised. Nevertheless, it appears to be within bounds on both a narrowly legal and a broader moral basis.
. . . Authors may argue that their brands are diluted by unauthorized dictionaries, best-of lists and other fan-generated content (and really, shouldn't Dumbledore have come out of the closet in a work of fan fiction rather than a Rowling press availability?), but these are essential to keeping the flame alive. The fans Rowling alienates today are people who won't be around to lend their support when newer fads and fickle tastes entomb Harry Potter in the eternal remainder bin.
Having deftly (and mercifully) held to her pledge to cut off the series at seven increasingly bloated books, Rowling should move on, hope Warner's movie adaptations can be completed before Daniel Radcliffe is ready for his old-age pension and continue to enjoy what most other writers would use the Avada Kedavra spell to get: readers willing to commit their lives to cataloging her stuff. If she doesn't follow that course, however, that's her right. Bad behavior should not mean that you lose your property rights, even if you're a billionaire."
I was giving contributions to free software before there was a free software movement. It was just programs that we made improvements to, no big deal. I saw the Lexicon in much the same terms, a freely available resource that served the HP community. Sure SVR was the leader, just like Linus Torvald is the head of the Linux project. I thought of this being along the same lines. I wanted to contribute to something that is there for everyone. It is the same reason that when I am using Wikipedia and see a broken link, I will fix it immediately. I am just trying to help communities I belong to. Helping Steve write a book, is not in my opinion helping a community.
So I have no problem with what the lawyer did at all and more importantly, it was my post she used.
I disagree with your comparison of Leaky to "free software." I don't think most fans looked at it that way. We thought the Lexicon was a work-in-progress over the years, but it was not seen as a "community." "Lexicon Steve" was well-known on all the forums, and even when people sent in things they knew those facts might become part of the whole, and it would still be Steve's project.
There is some revisionist history going on right now with people denying they ever used the Lexicon - that's a lie. I'm sorry, it just is.