p2pnet - rss feed: JK Rowling ‘all but paralyzed’ by stress
p2pnet news | Freedom:- Harry Potter author JK Rowling says her normal writing life has been all but paralyzed by “stress and heartache”.
She’d, “flown to New York from her Edinburgh home” to testify in the Steven Vander Ark trial, “because she felt so strongly about someone else turning 17 years of her labor on the Harry Potter series into an encyclopedia,” says the New York Times.
Vander Ark’s online Harry Potter Lexicon, an unofficial reference guide to the Potter series and seven years in the making, was to have been published as a book by RDR Books, a small Michigan publisher, last year.
But Rowling and Warner Bros, which owns the cinematic rights to the books, put a stop to that via a copyright lawsuit.
The trial, “has really decimated the demands of my creative work for the last month,” she testified, “at least once stoically holding back tears as she talked about the Potter books as if they were her children,” says the NYT.
“You lose the threads, you worry if you’ll ever be able to pick them up again.”
Fair use doctrine
But if Rowling wins, the decision, “could have a far-reaching impact on the literary landscape, and beyond, to discussions of any fictional work in any medium,” says professor says Lawrence Lessig, founder and director of Stanford Law Schools Center for Internet and Society and the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith professor of law.
The Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project is acting for RDR, with Lessig as co-counsel.
RDR Books has the right to publish the Lexicon under the fair use doctrine, says the Fair Use project.
“The doctrine safeguards the use of copyrighted material so long as it is used transformatively and does not damage the market value of the original work,” it states, executive director Anthony Falzone declaring:
“J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. are asserting a startling claim. The right to create literary reference guides like the Lexicon has remained nearly unquestioned for hundreds of years. The Lexicon is a valuable resource that helps people better understand and enjoy the Harry Potter books.”
That’s exactly what copyright law should encourage, not suppress, Falzone states.
Said the NYT story >>>
Ms. Rowling argued on Monday in Federal District Court in Manhattan that the proposed encyclopedia - she has read the manuscript - is a copyright infringement and is little more than an alphabetical form of plagiarism.
She claims the author has lifted large chunks of her own language without quotation marks. “I believe that this book constitutes the wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work,” she testified.
What she denounced as plagiarism and a waste of money, the publisher defended as literary scholarship and an invaluable tool for Harry Potter readers, similar to a Shakespeare concordance, the Encyclopedia Britannica, the dictionary and other reference books. Ms. Rowling said the manuscript was “sloppy, lazy,” riddled with errors and motivated by the publisher’s and author’s realization that it could bring “a fast buck.”
She said the book, which would cost $24.95, would compete unfairly with an encyclopedia she had been planning to create since 1998, the profits of which - possibly millions of dollars - she had planned to donate to a British charity.
“The idea of my readership parting with their or their parents’ hard-earned cash for this, I think it’s a travesty,” she said.
‘Fan-site award’
Falzone and Fair Use Project associate director Julie Ahrens are working with RDR lead trial counsel David S. Hammer and RDR counsel Lizbeth Hasse.
“All of the material that’s going to be published in the Lexicon has been available on the Harry Potter Lexicon website for a long time without objection from Ms. Rowling or anyone else,” says Hammer.
“To suggest that the Lexicon might affect the market for a companion guide Ms. Rowling plans to publish some day, perhaps years from now, is inconceivable given her stature and reputation.”
Meanwhile, Rowling conceded that she’d given a ‘fan-site award’ to ‘Vander Ark’s Web site in 2004, “but she said she had given the award only ‘as a kind of A for effort’,” said the New York Times, adding:
“When she gave the award, she wrote on her own Web site: ‘I have been known to sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing).’
“But she said she had consulted the Web site only because ‘I wanted to do a nice thing for the award. Do I now regret that? Yes, bitterly’.”
Stay tuned.
New York Times - Rowling Testifies Against Lexicon Author , April 15, 2008
far-reaching impact - Harry Potter goes to court: Rowling case, April 14, 2008
Fair Use Project - Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project Defends RDR Books Against Copyright Lawsuit Brought by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros, April 14, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:25 am
I suppose nobody will mention that all proceeds of the encyclopedia that she’s been writing are supposed to go to charity, which is why she is fighting so hard against someone else cutting in. It’s one thing to have it online, it’s quite another to put it in a book, and publish it.
my 2 cents,
Liam
April 15th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Why doesn’t she just NOT write her own version and just give money to the charity anyway. I’m sure she can afford it.
If she wins this case I’d be pissed. An encyclopedia/lexicon on any topic should not fall under copyright. I could write a lexicon all about Google, the biggest website in the world, and there’s nothing they could do about it. It’s the same thing here.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:54 am
@ Liam
From the story, “She said the book, which would cost $24.95, would compete unfairly with an encyclopedia she had been planning to create since 1998, the profits of which - possibly millions of dollars - she had planned to donate to a British charity.”
Cheers!
April 15th, 2008 at 7:14 am
” I suppose nobody will mention that all proceeds of the encyclopedia that she’s been writing are supposed to go to charity, ”
So that makes it ok to use the legal system to destroy fair use ?
There is nothing stopping her from still creating her own, and
somehow, I think she will still profit.
There is nothing stoping her from donating some of her profits from
the final Potter book to a british charity.
The ‘Charity’ angle is just that.
An ‘angle’ to gather public sympathy for her while she tries to do
something that we SHOULD be outraged over.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Seriously, this lady, like all rich people, has more money than she could possibly spend in a thousand lifetimes, and yet, like all rich people, she wants more more more more more. STUFF YOUR GORGE, LADY, AND SEE IF YOU DON’T KILL YOURSELF BEFORE YOU’RE SATED.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Pathetic. I don’t buy it, not for a second. If it is true that her life has been shattered because of this terrible affliction, then that’s even worse. If true, then I think it’s safe to say that she has truly been destroyed by greed.
Anyway, noisey cherrity giving always bugged me.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I bet this ‘fake’ encyclopaedia is really rather good. I also bet that JKR had NO intention of producing an encyclopaedia of Harry Potter until after she had discovered and actually used this other resource as a reference for her own writing.
Those who think Harry Potter is a unique work and involves no plagiarism (like JK herself) are kidding themselves. If she hasn’t already downloaded this independent work to ’steal’ back into her collective, she will do if she wins this case.
Charity, indeed.
It’s always the super rich who donate 1% of their wealth to charity that preach to others who are just starting to try and get some money from their hard work that they should be ashamed of their greed. Then proceed to plagiarise and steal as usual.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
On the other hand…
I suppose JK is right to do something about this because it is like someone writing your biography and publishing it without your consent.
The really stupid part is she should have ENDORSED this work (with some editorial say-so and input) and worked toward a royalties deal which she could give to charity if she wanted.
Her advisers (if she has any) have shafted her very hard by turning this into a court battle. Now her chosen charity will lose potential monies which will line lawyers pockets instead, as well as potentially destroying and at the very least negatively affecting the encyclopaedia and the people/fans behind it.
If you can’t work amicably with other people and trust no one else, you deserve to be paralysed by stress as you try miserably to pretend to do it all yourself…
April 15th, 2008 at 9:50 am
^^^ agree with above posters.
She is just being greedy. She has no understanding of Fair Use (although I don’t know if her laws have the same protections as U.S. law). She has implicity given her tacit approval to do this by her own admission: she uses and has used the online reference many times and has recommended it to others. “stress and heartache” indeed. One more case of: He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
@Barry: not the same since you are allowed to write someone else’s biography just fine. It’s called UNAUTHORIZED and you see them on the New York Times bestseller lists all the time.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“The trial, “has really decimated the demands of my creative work for the last month,” she testified,”
So it has interferred with 10% of her writing? Yeah, that’s a a real hardship!
April 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
“She said the book, which would cost $24.95, would compete unfairly with an encyclopedia she had been planning to create since 1998″
She’s been planning it for a decade? What’s taking her so long? Starting it AFTER the other books are finished will be much harder than if she’d worked on it right along.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Any encyclopedia she write herself is going to be hugely popular. Fans have been known to buy multiple copies of books just to have different cover variations, does anyone really think that Harry Potter fanatics won’t buy every single book that is somehow related to the series?
Sory for the multiple posts. Blame WordPress.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“She claims the author has lifted large chunks of her own language without quotation marks.”
“Ms. Rowling said the manuscript was “sloppy, lazy,” riddled with errors…”
So how hard would it be to add the missing quotation marks, and add a warning that the book may contain inaccuracies? I doubt Rowling would drop the lawsuit but it would certainly take some steam out of her case.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“When she gave the award, she wrote on her own Web site: ‘I have been known to sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing).’ … Do I now regret that? Yes, bitterly’.”
It was OK for her to utilize the online version of the encyclopedia for her benefit when she needed it. (BUT IT ISN’T FOR US?!) However, now that it is common knowledge and it is undermining her ability to make all of the royalties—she is ‘bitter’ that she did it? (HOW CONVENIENT!) Besides, if the “online encyclopedia” was of such great use to her while she continued writing her Harry Potter Series, it only goes to support it under FAIR USE. Otherwise it would be like an artist using a competitor’s designs for his own guidelines.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“…the book…would compete…with an encyclopedia she had been planning to create…”
And she has more money than God, so the legal costs of attempting to SLAPP down the “competition” are a non-issue… for her.
That’s about all there is to it. Just ugly, greedy business. The real problem is the potential for setting a TERRIBLE legal precedent. Another non-issue… for her.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:58 am
There was no outrage over “The Dark Tower Concordance”. But then again, The Dark Tower wasn’t exactly making Harry Potter-kind of money. Also Stephen King has loads of common sense.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:06 am
It’s all about money money money. As if she is short of a bob or two ?
Hey JK your books are rubbish and you can’t hold a candle to Tolkien !
As monty python put it :
Just one wafer thin mint Mrs Creosote ?
She must be a queen as she’s not covered in s*%t like the rest of us !
April 16th, 2008 at 5:39 am
I said it before and I’ll say it again, ALL proceeds of the book go to charity (as I understand it). And if you even looked at her record, you’d realize that she gives away her money every day to charitable events. While some of you might be so greedy you couldn’t imagine someone giving away that much money, if you did your research, you’d notice that J.K. is that kind of person, because until 10 years ago, she was still on welfare… As to the person who said that she is taking too much time to write the book, each of her books (all seven of them) had about a 2 year gap in between each other. Now if the final book came out in 2007… Hmmm, yeah I guess it might take her 2 years to come out with the next one (the encyclopedia), and while fair use is a relevant issue to discuss, to attack the author who is really only trying to protect the money that will end up NOT in her bank coffers, but those of a non-profit organization, is disgusting, rude, and idiotic (IMHO).
“The best way to save face is to not open your mouth to begin with”
Liam
April 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Wow, another potter fanatic liberal speaks. Forget, for just ONE second, about the person and your “feelings” and concentrate on the F A C T S please.
1. no proof other than her words now, that she has been “waiting since 1998″ to write her version of a potter lexicon. It is disengenuous and unconvincing of her to conveniently state that NOW after it looks like this book might make some money.
2. no proof other than her words now, that she was going to give the proceeds of this “planned” potter lexicon to charity. It is disengenuous and unconvincing of her to conveniently state that NOW after it looks like this book might make some money.
3. “Fair Use” is rather precise and to the point on this, and it seems obvious that this derivative work falls squarely within the protection afforded by the law. (In America, at least).
4. she has admitted that she has frequently used the online work many times in the past, thus giving tacit approval of its existence. Copyright law states that you must aggressively pursue ALL infringers, no exceptions, otherwise you are deemed to have give up your rights to protection under the law. Black And White. No Ambiguities. Don’t just believe me, go read the law yourself. It is disengenuous and unconvincing of her to conveniently state that now she “bitterly regrets” that she used it in the past. OF COURSE SHE REGRETS IT NOW!! Now that it looks like she is going to lose her case and miss out on that paltry bit of money! Sheesh.
4. you, and every other potter fan(atic) would not give a rats azz if it was someone else in the EXACT same position and given the EXACT same facts in the case. The gift to charity is a red herring she conveniently threw in to lend some form of credence to her shabby case because she KNOWS she is in the wrong and she is hoping her money can buy her a win.
SHE is disgusting, rude, and idiotic (IMHO).
April 16th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
” I said it before and I’ll say it again, ALL proceeds of the book go to charity (as I understand it). And if you even looked at her record, you’d realize that she gives away her money every day to charitable events. ”
And i’ll say it again.
No amount of ‘ charity ‘ justifies uses the legal system to destroy a fair use project, and
potentially set EXTREMELY damaging legal precedent.
Greed is still greed.
Satan can give 3 mil to the March of Dimes, but he would still be Satan.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:00 am
You can be so lazy. Below I will lay out times before this case was even in existence where she said she was doing the encyclopedia for charity, as well as SOME of the charitable things she has done. As I said in my earlier post, the fair use debate is important, but don’t go downing on someone who givesaway more every month than you will make in a lifetime. And yes I am liberal. Yes, I am a happy potter fan. And yes, I’m quite proud to be both of those things. Read on and be enlightened about your own ignorance.
In 2001 she published 2 books where over 33 million went to charity.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/london/main242283.shtml?source=search_story
Let’s see, oh yeah, here in 2000, 2001, and 2002, it is mentioned that she is doing the encyclopedia and looking to have all profits go to charity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_2347000/2347285.stm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-81081534.html
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F51F430710519D6&p_docnum=1
Having a site online and generating money from the ad revenue is different than taking someone’s content and making money by selling it. If this was a clear cut case of fair use, then their wouldn’t be such a debate. But while we all hate copyright infringement on some level, it exists, and it is law. If you want to live with the rest of us in society, you have to live by societies laws. If societies laws say that you can’t make a profit off of someone elses copyrighted material, than that’s the way it is.
It’s a pleasure having this convo with all of you, and going over the “F A C T S”. I so enjoy when people speak without researching first, it makes proving them idiotic that much simpler.
Liam
P.S. Try google news next time:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=harry+potter+j+k+rowling+encyclopedia+charity