Hope that helps!
Liam

Personally I hope Rowlings loses as I guess I’d like to see more rather than less competition. When her own books were published it was little bity Scholastic who published (here in the US, I believe it was another publisher overseas), but the big guns turned it down.

Who’s to say this little publisher won’t have a big hit on it’s hands with the “Unauthorized Lexicon” & I doubt she’ll lose any sales of hers just because this one is out there.

As far as giving profits to charity. Profits can be toyed with or the decision changed. That doesn’t go to the heart of the mater anyway.

my 2 cents mom of 5

Gave up for now.

Cheers!
Jon

My response to Dreddsnik apparently was deleted and I’m not taking the 1/2 hour to rewrite it. Suffice to say:

- You can’t be greedy if your motive is to give money away to those in need.
- It’s not innovative what he’s doing. He’s taking information and rearranging/indexing it. Which is copyrighting. If he were to add his own insights and thoughts and inferences and include that in his encyclopedia, then it would be a derivative work and fall under fair use. It’s just copying and pasting information, that’s illegal. If you don’t like it change the laws, don’t bitch at those enforcing them.
- I agree she is stifling competition on some level, but because she never sued the other books about harry potter which are derivative and not just copies (and there are many of them) I don’t think we can say she’s trying to stifle all competition surrounding Harry Potter
- It’s publishing not the RIAA. It’s not like J.K. has been paying lobbyists to change copyright law to make her more money, nor is she an old dinosaur who hates her customers.
- Personally I don’t believe she’d lose money if it were published, but the debate/lawsuit isn’t about whether or not she’d lose money, it’s about fair use, so I’ll try to stick to that subject when addressing this issue.

Looking forward to everyone’s reply, I’ll keep an open mind as long as you do,
Liam Jewell

” Quit while you’re ahead. All the best gamblers do. “

As of recent (8 years or so) I’m not that proud to be an American either.

I do have to DISAGREE when you say that the actions taken by Rowling are meant to stifle innovation with greed as a primary motive (although I would agree that they ARE MEANT TO STIFLE COMPETITION) If she were making money then that would be an easy statement, but since the profits are going toward charity, you can’t really say greed is a motive. I hope we can agree on that.

I would hate to have any precedent set that would stifle anyone’s innovation. However taking her words and thoughts and adding no new information, and not taking information from anywhere else, then indexing it, isn’t innovation. It’s copying and organizing it in a different way. In other words, copyrighting. If he were to add his own thoughts and musings, or to make inferences into the plot, then it would be a derivative work. Without additional information being added, you are just copying.

If I have made a mistake in logic, please feel free to point it out. I’m not here to argue, I’m here to debate. As long as the person I’m debating with is willing to have a change of opinion, so will I.

Looking forward to your reply,
Liam

P.S. Oh yeah, my opinion is already biased seeing as how I work in the book publishing industry. I will try to keep my opinions subjective, but you should keep that in mind while chatting with me!

I don’t see anyone on this page using ad-hominem attacks against you Liam.
Stooping to that really does nothing for anyones credibility.

Personally ..
I am not inclined to jump on the rowling ‘pity wagon’ .

I see the ramifications for her victory as pretty far reaching, in a negative sense much
the same way a REAL RIAA victory would destroy incentive for derivative and competitive
works.

” Who defines ‘expert’ ?”
The person who creates the material would be the expert… again, obvious. ”

I don’t see this as necessarily fact, or obvious.
Others may not either. Your opinion, duly noted.

” Who decides whats ‘legitimate’ ?”
The person who owns the copyright would decide who’s legitimate, who else? ”

Not necessarily obvious or fact, though many would share your opinion.

” Wow, good effort on trying to disprove the points, but logic and facts will win against people playing on words every time. ”

Also, not necessarily true.
If this were true, RIAA lawyers would be soon out of work.

Rowlings efforts, in my OPINION, appear to be made of the same stuff as the RIAA
suits.
A way to stifle innovation and competition, with greed as the primary motive.

I don’t see Rowling losing anything at all if she actually puts out a lexicon of her own.
Fans will, as usual, go out in droves to have an ‘Official’ lexicon. It will still make a bundle.
Since she herself says that all the proceeds are to go to a charity, she obviously is not
in danger of going broke.
True, just because she is wealthy doesn’t mean she has no more rights, but it also
doesn’t give her rights to uproot possible legal competition. It is certainly not ‘obvious’
to all that such a published lexicon is illegal, though OPINIONS will vary.

There are a LOT of unofficial, unauthorized lexicons on many subjects, subjects which
include materials that are copyrighted by others. A decision in her favor would outlaw
any such endeavor, which is not necessarily in the spirit of copyright law.

Avoid name calling, it almost makes you sound American.
Even us Americans are sick of it.

“So, it’s not ‘hers’ per se either ,then .. is it ?”
Exactly, but are those users trying to make a profit by copyrighting? NO - YAY fair use.
If they wanted to make a profit off it by printing it out and selling it, she’d have every right to pursue them as well as him.

“Rowling herself uses it for review.”
Review, in the context of the Wikipedia definition provided, is supposed to mean “to have criticism or to summarize” the material. Your attempt to play on words isn’t going to make the statement wrong. An in depth analysis of the books isn’t a review or summary. See the difference?
As to her using it herself… while that adds some credibility to the areas shes used, that doesn’t give blanket credibility to everything on the site… Also obvious.

“It would appear that he is quite an expert, second to Rowling herself.”
Where is that coming from? Him indexing other peoples content makes him an expert? Is the creator of google now an expert in everything they’ve indexed? Didn’t think so.

“Who defines ‘expert’ ?”
The person who creates the material would be the expert… again, obvious.

“Who decides whats ‘legitimate’ ?”
The person who owns the copyright would decide who’s legitimate, who else?

Wow, good effort on trying to disprove the points, but logic and facts will win against people playing on words every time. If you are going to have a debate, please use facts and logic, not stupidity.

Expert enough to have Rowling herself use the site as a reference.

” by his own admission much of the work on his site that went into his book was user generated); ”

So, it’s not ‘hers’ per se either ,then .. is it ?

” nor is he using it for “scholarship or review.” ”

So, what else then is it used for ?
Rowling herself uses it for review.

Grasping at minutae, it appears.

” An encyclopedia by definition is supposed to be written by “content experts” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia) ”

It would appear that he is quite an expert, second to Rowling herself.
Who defines ‘expert’ ?
Who decides whats ‘legitimate’ ?

An encyclopedia by definition is supposed to be written by “content experts” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia)

Since this person is neither a recognized expert in the field of Harry Potter (by his own admission much of the work on his site that went into his book was user generated); nor is he using it for “scholarship or review.” I don’t see how this can be an infringement on fair use, or even be considered of high enough quality to be considered a reliable encyclopedia.

Following logic and common sense, if it’s not yours why can you make money off of it?
Liam

I’m not sure where the law will land on this but I know where common sense and morality stand.

She has every right to claim dibs on the publishing of a Potter Facts Encyclopedia. After spending so much time brainstorming the ideas that went into her books, I understand her connection to the fantasy world she created is an intimate part of her life.

It makes me laugh that people who work hard and are able to become rich by their talent are suddenly “filthy stinking rich scumbags”, and become objects of distain.

Whether she is rich not or not, that is not the point. What is the point, is that she created the characters in her stories, and thus she should have a say in what happens to derivative works.

While I must stress the fact that this litigation is a terrible publicity decision, it still is in her right to block a publication based on her work, that does not benefit her monetarily.

This probably would not have been a problem, if the book had come out in the middle of the series, but now that the Harry Potter series has finished, this type of book may have the possibility of killing the sales of a book she planned to release, at a later date.

Remember, if your main source of income is based on a single series (that has finished), you are are fight any potential threats (especially if you have experienced poverty).

Just my two cents