Quote: I ... think that legal systems (such as copyright) can be and are increasingly used to limit, contain, rationalize and commercialize kids' culture. And this happens in a variety of ways - through the elimination of opportunities to generate content, or by placing restrictions on what and how that content is generated (limiting freedom of expression and undermining children's agency); through corporate claims of IP ownership over child-generated content and submissions; and by teaching kids from a very young age a corporate reinterpretation of copyright law...ignoring fair use and obscuring the principles upon which copyright was based in the first place.

Quote: The application of these rewards and punishments, however, is quite arbitrary. Teachers have enormous discretion in giving punishments and rewards. In the criminal realm, the Minister of Magic can follow or bend the law depending on how he relates to specific people. The use of magic is punished depending on who the person is that commits a particular illegal act.

*snort*

aredwitch

Another British import was being read at the next table – a Harry Potter book. At least, an Americanized edition of Harry Potter. I could tell by the title: it read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone – not Philosopher's Stone. Evidently, the American publisher felt that US children would have some difficulty with the notion of a philosopher.

If you compare the British and American editions, you find over two hundred substitutions. The children eat crumpets and crisps in the UK; they eat English muffins and chips in the US – potato chips, that is. A dustbin becomes a trashcan, a cooker becomes a stove, Sellotape becomes Scotch tape. It is a mini-dictionary of transatlantic differences: candy-boxes for sweet-boxes, jell-O for jelly, mommy for mummy, sweater for jumper.

I had to start a new post because things are heating up.

In a new twist, TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington, who banned AP (Associated Press) stories from his blog due to the latest madness (see extensive coverage on my previous entry), has now decided to call in his own attorneys because the AP has quoted his blog without paying him a dime.  He has sent a takedown order to the AP based on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Fair Use Smackdown! 

Techcrunch: The AP Has Violated My Copyright and I Demand Justice

Also today, the AP promised to meet with an unknown and rather shady group called the "Media Bloggers Association" to form new guidelines, and yet not one story has leaked from the media about it. 

UPDATE: According to a blogger on The Washington Post, AP has issued a statement that this matter is now closed!  You can read it at the link because I don't dare copy their sacred words: 

AP Says Drudge Retort Excerpt Matter Closed ~ No Official Policy Announced

Rogers Cadenhead: Writes About His Meeting with the AP Attorneys  ~ 
The Stanford Fair Use Project offtered to help him.

“The principal question is whether the excerpt is a substitute for the story, or some established adaptation of the story,” said Timothy Wu, a professor at the Columbia Law School. Mr. Wu said that the case is not clear-cut, but he believes that The A.P. is likely to lose a court case to assert a claim on that issue.

“It’s hard to see how the Drudge Retort ‘first few lines’ is a substitute for the story,” Mr. Wu said.

“We are not trying to sue bloggers,” Mr. Kennedy said. “That would be the rough equivalent of suing grandma and the kids for stealing music. That is not what we are trying to do.”

( Here Are Lots of Links (Yes Links) to Bloggers Sounding Off )

My friend Bluestocking has posted some new enlightening essays for your summer reading pleasure:

It Ain't Libel If It's True!

and . . .


Copyright Through the Annals of Time, Part One

Yes it all started with the fabled "book curse."


Let's take a trip to the "Lego Hogwarts Library" shall we? I've never heard Madam Pince sound so convincing (and alot like Norman Bates' mother from Psycho):

Kevin Smith writes in the Duke University Copyright Blog:

Imagining Fair Use

The judge has rejected a request by the Yoko Ono for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the distribution of the film. Ono claimed that the use of this short clip without her permission was copyright infringement. Given the vastly different political perspectives involved, it is unlikely permission would have been forthcoming. But the judge ruled that it was also unlikely that permission was necessary, since there was a strong claim that the use was fair use. Since one of the criteria for getting a preliminary injunction is “likelihood of success on the merits,” Ono’s request was denied because the judge felt it was unlikely she would succeed on the underlaying claim that using the clip was infringement.

. . . Nor does the film Expelled compete in any way with the market for the recordings of John Lennon. And in a traditional transformative use case, the owner of the original may not have much desire to license the use if asked, since the proposed new use often subjects the original to criticism or ridicule (as in this case). Transformative uses are often those uses where there is a strong possibility that the copyright owner in the original work would use his or her rights to suppress the new speech; fair use is the remedy that prevents this censorship by copyright.

For me, this role of fair use in preserving copyright as the “engine of free expression” is especially clear in this case (for an explanation and discussion of this quote from Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, see this report from The Free Expression Project). Free speech is always hardest to accept, and most important to remember, when one disagrees violently with what is being said. In this case, I personally have little use for the claims being made in the movie “Expelled;” they strike me as inflammatory and hard to defend with real logic or facts. Nevertheless, the right of the movie producers to make those claims is inviolate, in my opinion, and it is important that they have the tools to make their case in the best way the can. Fair use is an important tool to support creative expression, whether I agree with the content of that expression or not. The arguments being made in the movie may fail, but the judge got this decision exactly right when he ruled that the producers could use the tools they did (including a small part of another’s copyrighted expression) to make those arguments." 

( Read More Opinions of the Verdict Here )

What makes this so disturbing, is that for those of us who feel that this book frankly, is no big deal, and should be published under the guidelines of “fair use”, we have been called “JK Rowling haters”, or “Steve Vander Ark lovers”. Simply because, we are exercising out inalienable right to disagree. We are not “true fans” 

GASP!!! We disagree!!!

Now, the Star-Bell Sneetches had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.
Those stars weren’t so big. They were really so small.
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all.

But, because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, “We’re the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.”
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort
“We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!”

...When the Star Belly Sneetches had frankfurter roasts
Or picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts,
They never invited the Plain-Belly Sneetches
They left them out cold, in the dark of the beaches.
They kept them away. Never let them come near.
And that’s how they treated them year after year...

~ Dr. Seuss

New Blog Post on Madam Pince's Potter Pages by Lisa Bunker, one of the co-writers of the Lexicon Book:

Who Are We? Where Are We Going? 

I agree with her that It is getting harder to articulate just what is going on, and what is going "wrong."  And Fandom is difficult to explain to someone who isn't involved in it.

However, I disagree that Fandom was ever a totally innocent place.  Maybe in the very early days, but I missed those times.  I joined Fandom in August 2003 right after Order of the Phoenix was released. I never saw Fandom as a "safe" place where everyone was nice.  By then, alot of ideas about the books were "fixed" in people's minds.  The Marauders = Cool/Brilliant/Fun.  Snape=Ugly/Jerk/DeathEater.  People were already indoctrinated in some ways by Fandom, and that's what the Shipping Wars were about.  The books were not as important as the swirling fantasies, and it was difficult sometimes to get people to go back to the pages of the books.

My first theory on a forum was about the HP books compared to Alice in Wonderland.  People lined up to ridicule my theories as crap, and I almost didn't make it through a week without quitting.  But eventually, I learned out to debate and argue, to make friends, and avoid nasty people. I learned to bite my own tongue to get along. We've all had days when someone wrote something to make us feel shunned, avoided, outcast, depressed, and court-martialed. Almost anyone in Fandom will know what I'm talking about.  

About the only advice I can give anyone about Fandom is: If you love the books, keep on keeping on with it.  If you are still interested, there will always be something to talk about.  But it's not going to be a fun every day. Lately, it's taken the wrong Floo to Nocturn' Alley.  You just have to stay calm and not let the Death Eaters scare you while you find your way back out of there.

The other day, I posted a comment from the writer Karen Brown, author of Prejudice in Harry Potter. I had originally seen the comment on Kristin Devoe's Daily Prophet blog, and I posted it Here in a discussion of Tim Wu's New Yorker Article.

I did not know Ms. Brown, but I wrote an e-mail to her inviting her to comment further, which she did. I never meant to drag her into a huge controversy or cause problems for her in any way, and I am so sorry. I have quoted dozens of bloggers in the past few months to show different views, and several of them have decided to comment here with no drama.  

I was just trying to give a balanced view of the case, since I have been criticized for my own bias. I felt that Ms. Brown had a refreshing view, since she is a fan and supporter of J. K. Rowling, but was wishing that fandom would tone down their criticism of Steve Vander Ark and let the legal system decide the fate of his book.

But due to unfortunate things that have been said in the past few days, Ms. Brown has been drawn into some accusations and threats, both public and private. She feels her statement is being misconstrued and her views distorted. This has caused her a great deal of distress, and she decided to state her own view in a public setting.  Therefore Karen has put out a Press Release:

Caught on the Wrong Side of Harry Potter Fandom 

lunas_ceiling

( Calling a Spade a Spade )

Tonight an interesting encounter on Leaky in which Melissa accused the poster kbnthomas of being Karen Brown, and demanded a retraction of the comment posted above.  About the deletions - many people who support Steve Vander Ark have been deleted on Leaky.  I don't see how we can "prove" that now, since the posts are, by definiton, gone.  If Melissa wants to open up her logs for a day and let us see the names of the people deleted in the past three months, that might convince me, so I would urge her to "prove" that we haven't been deleted.

"Unsurprisingly, the fan reaction has been visceral, in all sorts of directions. I particularly like being compared to Rita Skeeter. Obviously there is much more I would have liked to have put in - there were hours of interviews, and great contributions from Sheryll Townsend that were cut in their entirely to my dismay. But overall the thrust of the article was to describe the feud over Steven Vanderark in fandom, and his punishment therein.

Ironically, the article itself seems to have led to even more feuding in fandom.
Melissa Anelli in particular feels she has been misrepresented; though I am not sure I see why. Briefly, I mention and quote language to the effect that her and other leaders in fandom have been strong supporters of Rowling, and tough on Steve Vander Ark. This no one can deny. It is also true that Anelli herself has a good relationship with Rowling, and is writing a book, on fandom, with her blessing. These are the facts - and I didn’t refer to her as having mushroom hair, so she ought be happy.

Perhaps I will end with a para that was cut from the piece that seems to capture things:

Sheryll Townsend, a forty-eight year old Slytherin and fellow member of Harry Potter for Grownups (she calls herself a “list elf”), said, “Fandom tends to eat their own.”

"I fully expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will be:

1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law's provision for scholarly work, commentary and review.

2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.

3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch. "

( Follow the Yellow Brick Road to more Entries )

WB: amount and substantiality of the portion used- the facts are taken and organized without commentary or analysis.
Fails to take into consideration that Copyright only protects the expression of the ideas not the ideas themselves.

WB: market effect- Ms. Rowling intends to fill the niche for an encyclopedia (Scottish Book).
Fails to take into consideration that the First Amendment is interested in the “Market place of Ideas” which is not served if only one person JK Rowling is allowed to interpret Harry Potter.

WB: Bad faith- SVA tried to publish this book clandestinely.
Fails to consider that the original copyright holder does not control the creation of secondary works which the Lexicon probably falls under.

( Read an Excerpt Here )

And here is an interesting tidbit about the Half-Blood Prince movie - in Spain they are changing the title to "The Prince Mystery" or "Harry Potter y el Misterio del Príncipe." How wonderful that title sounds - I wish that was the English name as well! Or "The Mysterious Prince."

And speaking of Severus, the information for ordering the new Tonner Snape Doll has appeared - thanks to green_skiddles for telling me about this. It's fairly expensive at $179.00, but it's a really nice item.

"Fair Use assures us that, with regard to intellectual property, society’s interests are relevant.... For one, a judgement in Rowling’s favor would discourage the flow of information from the Internet to actual publication. But more importantly, it would set a precedent that effectively sanctions an author’s monopoly on his or her work ... It is for these reasons that Judge Patterson should reject JK Rowling’s bid for the exclusive right to her copyrighted work, and rule in favor of the defendant, RDR Books."

"...  In what appears to be an emerging trend, colleges across the country, including Yale University, are offering coursework in the theology of Harry Potter. It stands to reason that any supplement like the Lexicon, regardless of who compiled it, would be a valuable teaching aid in this venue."

"At this early hour Tuesday morning, we are excited to inform everyone that the author of the Harry Potter novels has just passed along an early copy of her upcoming Encyclopedia! ... (Yeah, right - as if!)

... Warner Brothers has announced today that JK Rowling's upcoming Harry Potter Encyclopedia is in the works to become a possible three season animated series. ... The WB publicity department was quick to note that this is not one last money making opportunity....While no details are official, insiders tell us the series will be a collage of scenes inspired by facts revealed in Rowling's Encyclopedia. Season 1 is slated to be released between late 2012 and early 2013.

SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 4/14/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Robert P. Patterson.
Pretrial order to be filed by 4/7/08, if case is to be tried by jury.
Voir dire requests and requests to charge by 4/7/08,if case to be tried by jury.
Witness List to be provided by 4/4/08.
SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Robert P. Patterson on 3/5/08)