aredwitch

I have a very strong view and my view --
4 my view is that it is analogous to me making a cake and that in
5 the creation of this Lexicon, all the plums in my cake, as it
6 were. . .

I believe that
13 the contents of those books have been plundered

From Cendali's Summation:

It's incentivizing people who write about Harry
24 Potter to take less, to not just copy, as Ms. Rowling, once
25 again, eloquently put it, not taking the plums in her cake or

1 cherry-picking out the adorable wonderful clever things about
2 it and selling in her own. Not taking her plums; so taking
3 less, but doing more

She compared this taking of her work to plundering all of the “plums in [her]
cake.” (Tr. (Rowling) at 647:3-6).

aredwitch

"DE(DavidEnglish) did the judge really write that SVA 'plundered' JKR and stolen her 'plums'? That sounds so out of place in a legal document, I have to go back and read it again. It sounds so suggestive. Who knew that a legal judgement could be so sexy?

Steve has put up a link on the Lexicon's "What's New" page for ordering the book ~ HERE

Kristin Devoe: Daily Prophet ~ HP Lexicon to be Published Jan. 12th!
MatthewHolm: Harry Potter Lexicon Dispute Concludes with Worst Book Title Ever
Stanford Fair Use: Anthony Falzone ~ Lexicon Resurrected

( Original News Links Here )

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that can occur in groups of people. Rather than critically evaluating information, the group members begin to form quick opinions that match the group consensus. Groupthink seems to occur most often when a respected or persuasive leader is present, inspiring members to agree with his or her opinion. Groupthink is sometimes positive but is more often seen in a negative light, particularly in the United States and other countries that value individual opinion. Mass hysteria can be seen as an extreme example of groupthink.
http://phobias.about.com/od/glossary/g/groupthinkdef.htm

Steve has put up a link on the Lexicon's "What's New" page for ordering the book ~ HERE

Stanford Fair Use: Anthony Falzone ~ Lexicon Resurrected
Baby Blue on Shell Cottage: The Best of All Worlds ~ The HP Lexicon Will be Published ~ Finally
E-Online: Muggles Beware: Rogue Harry Potter Publisher Back on the Loose!
Publisher's Weekly: RDR Drops Rowling Appeal; Has New Book
Bluestocking has an Inklings News Alert Podcast on her blog now.
Muskegon Chronicle 12-5 ~ Publisher will issue Harry Potter Lexicon
Muskegon Chronicle 12-5 ~ Cutlerville Native Pens Second Harry Potter Reference

 Leaky Cauldron 12-4-08  Publisher RDR Books voluntarily withdrew its appeal in the RDR Books vs. WB/JKR case concerning the publication of an unauthorized Harry Potter encyclopedia. The publisher is working on releasing a version of the book in question that complies with the judge's ruling, which indicated that the original book copied heavily from the Harry Potter books. There was no settlement in the case.

The Christopher Little Agency released the following statement today:
"...We are also pleased to hear that rather than continue to litigate, RDR have themselves decided to publish a different book prepared with reference to Judge Patterson's decision."

( Read An Excerpt Under the Cut... )

( Read An Excerpt Here . . .  )

Praetorianguard: HAI, JUDGE PATTERSON!

Derek Bambauer: Rowling 1, Lexicon 0

Foresthouse: Conclusions of Law
&
Foresthouse: Harry Potter ~ One More Thing

Dustbunny105: Go, JKR!

Liz B.: Top Eight Things To Know About the Lexicon Ruling

Quidawn: Aaah, The Sweet Taste of Justice Like Chocolate!

( Links to Articles and Quotes from Steve Under Here )

Excerpt: Johnson: “But what do I think? I think it is not a lexicon either. A lexicon would be a word list, yes, where the word is most frequently reserved for Greek or Latin dictionaries forhistorical reasons. But we would expect a lexicon to have the kinds of information systematically and uniformly given that this doesn't, like etymologies or like pronunciations. "Lexicon" is another word for dictionary.”

Bluestocking: You know Ms. Johnson you should really stop speaking in absolutes like you are the authority. I checked my copy of Webster’s Dictionary, lexicon is listed as an encyclopedia not a word list. Would it really have been that hard to check this out? Once again, some examples would be really nice. Just so you know, when experts testify they give their opinions to a reasonable certainty. See the problem with absolutes is that you run the risk of having your opponent start putting Lexicons that are more than merely word lists and start quizzing you on them. In addition, a really cheeky lawyer might read you the Webster’s dictionary definition.

"Much like the U.S. economy, things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately."

( Read all about the Case in Vowels and Consonents . . .  )

wimble_mimble

. . . Handler notes that the judge in the often-emotional Harry Potter Lexicon case tried to get the parties to settle, saying the issues involved were not a proper subject for litigation. "This is uncharted territory where we have essentially empowered the audience to be a creator and there is a need for all sides to work out how far the audience can go. And there are mechanisms aside from litigation that could be brought to bear on these issues to work out the ways in which creators can remain in control of their work, while allowing their fans to continue to enjoy and participate in their creation."

"Or have we eaten on the insane root
That takes the reason prisoner?"
- Macbeth, 1.3 

"I have bought
Golden opinions from all sorts of people."
- Macbeth, 1.7

"First Witch: When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?
Second Witch: When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won."
- Macbeth, 1.1

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair."
- Macbeth, 1.1

Two truths are told,
As happy prologues to the swelling act
Of the imperial theme."
- Macbeth, 1.3

"There's daggers in men's smiles."
-Macbeth, 2.3

"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."
- Macbeth, 4.1

"What! can the devil speak true?"
- Macbeth, 1. 3

"Come what come may,
Time and the hour runs through the roughest day."
- Macbeth, 1.3

( More Here: Hence, horrible shadow! Unreal mockery, hence )

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 )

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.) 

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.