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.

freggythepod

( Read it Here )

freggythepod

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 )

Snitchseeker

JKR's Official Site

The Daily Record

J.K. Rowling: how small can you go? 

...as the price of Potter goes up, so the size of the books comes down (which is, at least, a blessing). Last year there was The Tales of Beedle the Bard, only 157 pages and with a print run cunningly restricted to seven books, of which only one came on to the market and was sold to Amazon (see that? sold to Amazon, not by Amazon) for £1.95 million. That's good business, that is.

After that Rowling clearly decided to see how far she could push the maths, and has now produced a book of only 800 words, written “in minuscule handwriting” on a single piece of A5. Eight hundred words! It's true, I read it in the Daily Mail on Thursday. Rowling has grasped that, with her stock this high, 800 is about as many words as she needs to write.

...Will her next great oeuvre contain 400 words? 200? 83? 

book_icons

xintax

 
Let's cruise into Memorial Day Weekend with more of the Travelling Wilburys:

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

From Snitchseeker:

A special 10th anniversary edition of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone will feature exclusive bonus material from J.K. Rowling. The book, being released by Scholastic on September 23, will also have new cover art by Mary GrandPré, which you can see below or in hi-res by clicking on the photo here in our gallery.

You can preorder the book here on Amazon.com.

Grandpre says: "It's a real treat for me to get another chance to visually bring Harry back to his fans in not only a new scene, but in a new light," said American illustrator of the Harry Potter books, Mary GrandPré. "Going back to draw the first cover for the anniversary edition was an opportunity for me to show another side of Harry... a vulnerable side. Having come to know and love Harry the way we all have, after experiencing the whole series, I think we can appreciate him even more on an emotional level."

You can see the new covers below the cut - what do you think? Will you buy one of these? And what will the "Bonus Material" be?

A great movie star died yesterday at the age of 70 - John Phillip Law.

He played a blind angel in "Barbarella," a young man seeking revenge in the western "Death Rides a Horse," a Russian sailor in "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming," and the mythical figure Sinbad from the Arabian Nights in "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad." 

                                                                            

Obituary Here

LA Times Slideshow of Pictures 

I was sorry to hear of his passing because I've always enjoyed his movies, two of which remind me strongly of Harry Potter. For one thing, John Phillip Law has these green eyes that are quite distinctive . . . 

First of all, since some of you are sick of Fandom, I've got a video first for a change. You can watch it and then walk away if you like. This is for all my friends, old and new, but especially my friend

corvus_coronis

*Now 100% Complete with extra Boring stuff in Blue* so Anonymous people won't think I'm leaving out important facts 
(I didn't listen beyond the end of this, nor am I ever going to, thanks.) 

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 just transcribed part of Pottercast 148 from Leaky Cauldron, since they can't seem to agree on who said what, and I wanted to hear it for myself. I think the problem that Tim Wu had, and that I had, is that Melissa and Sue sound rather similar when they only give one word answers such as "right."  That implies that they agree, whether they do or not.  There is no way to prove who is agreeing, whether Melissa or Sue. 

John Noe speaks the most, Melissa talks about her book, so we know that is her, and , from comments I've read on Leaky, it is Sue who makes the actual statement about Steve being "vilified" by fandom. So Tim Wu may have to make a correction to that article, but it's obviously all the same because no one argues a different side in this part of the Podcast.

This is the first time I've ever listened to a Pottercast before, although I've read the transcripts.  I admit I didn't listen to the whole thing.  I think I'd rather have a long slow root canal. 

"...when Rapoport received a series of threatening letters last fall from lawyers . . . he didn't flinch.

'The intimidation factor was zero,' Rapoport said with quiet pugnacity."
~~~~~~~

Rowling seemed willing to compromise on the witness stand, saying, "I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide, never ever. Do your book, but, please, change it so it does not take as much of my work."

. . . "That opportunity was never presented to us," he (Rappoport) said, his eyes flashing with anger. "The only thing they said [in the lawyer letters and pretrial discussions] was: 'Will you stop the book?' "
~~~~~~~

. . . the publisher said he has never been worried about the ultimate outcome. His lawyers, he said, have told him that "no court has ever ruled that the writer of a fictional work is the only person who can write about that book."
~~~~~~~