From: sucrelefey	Date: September 8th, 2008 08:44 pm (UTC)		(current file)

Stevie wasn't the defendant though. He conned his publisher into taking the fall. I have a feeling though he won't be able to that again.

From: quinasgiantfork	Date: September 8th, 2008 10:42 pm (UTC)		(current file)

I thought *she* sued him anyway? (But that doesn't mean he'd have to appear, right? He could make a deal where he withdrew his book or whatever?)

I *am* actually missing some facts, I think. I love Harry Potter, truly, but JKR seems like a jerk to me. :/

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 9th, 2008 04:33 am (UTC)		(current file)

Yep, she sued RDR Books. If they didn't want to go to trial, they could have dropped the plans to publish.

I don't know, I don't see any reason to think of her as a jerk - is it because of this case, or outside things? I mean, I don't know her one way or the other, but she always seems fine in whatever media I see of her.

From: quinasgiantfork	Date: September 9th, 2008 09:23 am (UTC)		(current file)

I just hear odd stories about her, I really don't hate her with a passion. I've heard rumors that actually *she* was plagiarizing other people, which never gotten proved one way or the other. And then I heard that she actually used the Lexicon website, so once upon a time she found value in what this dude did, I thought maybe she could have a bit more compassion. (Although then again, he tried to profit off of her ideas, but the whole thing is just...bad, start to finish.)

I think part of it is frustration, with her taking forever to write the books and then some things were left unexplained and she's the only person to take that out on. XD;

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 9th, 2008 03:09 pm (UTC)		(current file)

What kind of odd stories? Now I'm totally curious!

The difference between plagiarizing and using common tropes, fantasy lore, and ideas is important when it comes to how the law looks at copyright rights. For instance, Terry has said that the idea of the world being on a turtle was just lying around in the common beliefs of people (particularly Hindu beliefs, if I recall correctly), but he took it and made it into something unique. I know there have been some rumors about JKR using other people's ideas, but unless there's a close enough resemblance to make it more than her using common beliefs or ideas on a general level and then making them more specific with characterization, detail, and unique plot, then it's not legal infringement.

Then again, I don't know all the rumors - maybe there was something like that?

Yeah, I know. IT TOOK FOREVER! And I wasn't entirely pleased with the Epilogue, but hey, who was? :)

From: quinasgiantfork	Date: September 12th, 2008 06:20 pm (UTC)		(current file)

Well, here is an article for one case, but actually the person fabricated documents. I remember when it first came out, though, and it was a big deal. I feel like I read about a similar case but I could be completely wrong.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/18/1023864427305.html

I mean, it says straight up that the other author fabricated documents. But the story was that she allegedly took the word "Muggles" directly from this woman, who also allegedly had a character named Larry Potter.

I really do think my hostility just stems from frustration. Plus this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjJoo56mpI) makes me laugh *at* her, which doesn't contribute to my sanity. XD I actually really don't have any good reasons to hate on her, I suppose.

I liked the Epilogue but I wanted much more of it. :(

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 12th, 2008 06:36 pm (UTC)		(current file)

Ohhh, that video. HEE. I love how he parodies the kind of funny twist to her mouth.

Yeah, I would have liked more Epilogue, too - it was so brief and sparse that I kind of had to sit there and work out who all the kids were and stuff, because it wasn't obvious. To me, anyway.

Also: Draco's receding hairline! O_o I mean, it's hilarious, and I bet she did it as a TAKE THAT! to all the crazy Draco fans, but still. I feel like it was out of place.

From: quinasgiantfork	Date: September 12th, 2008 07:02 pm (UTC)		(current file)

I had to do the same thing. @_@

LAWL @ the receding hairline- I completely forgot about that!

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 15th, 2008 06:54 pm (UTC)		(current file)

Yeah, I was like, "Lily" who and "Victorie" what, now? *sigh*

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 9th, 2008 04:31 am (UTC)		(current file)

Agreed, but as sucrelefey notes, it was the publisher. Honestly, I'm surprised the publisher went for it. I can't really believe they thought they had a chance, but obviously they did think so.

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 9th, 2008 04:29 am (UTC)		(current file)

Well, honestly, JKR had the law on her side in this one. I never expected RDR to win, although I had a small fear they would. But I'm happy with the decision because of the facts of this case: the Lexicon took SO MUCH of JKR's work, without really adding anything to make it into something new and special (i.e. transformative). ON THOSE FACTS, it is fair and correct under the law that RDR should not be allowed to use that book for profit, because it is so unoriginal as to be a violation of JKR's copyright.

Now, if SVA had written a book of critical essays on HP, even if they were total crap, I'd have been on his side. As would the law. But he didn't do that. Maybe he should have! :)

From: quinasgiantfork	Date: September 9th, 2008 09:20 am (UTC)		(current file)

That is true, that it didn't add anything new to society, so it was unoriginal. However, I remember reading somewhere that JKR herself actually referenced the website when she was out writing and didn't have a copy of the book with her. So to me, that says that she thought the website had some value, if she was truly using it.

But no, it wasn't his work to use for profit, I don't believe that at all. However, I don't know if SVA and his publisher(s) caused "irreparable damage." Everyone knows it's her work and she's the most wealthy author in England (I think, or it's something like that.)

My extent of law knowledge is property and liability in a hospitality setting, though. I just think irreparable damage is a weird term to use because I don't think this will damage her beyond repair. I personally would have halted the book from being published and thrown out the case, but that's me and my non-knowledge of the law. :P

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 9th, 2008 03:05 pm (UTC)		(current file)

I don't know that anyone would argue the site had no value - it served as a useful reference and a quick way to look something up. It's the fact that they wanted to take that and turn it into a book for profit that caused all this to occur, anyway. :)

I'm getting to that part of the case in my "recap" and then I will probably do some discussion of the legal concepts if people want.

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 9th, 2008 04:33 am (UTC)		(current file)

Me neither, really!

	From: foresthouse	Date: September 9th, 2008 04:33 am (UTC)		(current file)

I know!