Orson Scott Card, "Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe" - Page 7

Alisa · 05-06-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radleyp

Alisa: of course Rowling has not gone after reviewers because she and Warner's know that reviewers and critics are allowed fair use to quote from books under review, but I have no doubt that she would like to. Protecting your work is one thing, but attacking those with much less standing - on quite weak legal grounds - is bullying.

What on earth makes you think that she would like to go after critics for quoting her works? Do you know her personally? Has she said as much anywhere? I think it's rather a stretch to start assuming you know the feelings of strangers. As for the lexicon, I thought her main criticism had been that a very large portion of the text on that site is actually direct quotes from her books, a higher portion than allowed by fair use.

JeffElkins · 05-06-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, but that's not the point. No author can let something which so blatantly violates their copyrights and trademarks be published unchallenged. If, as has been claimed, over 90% of the text in the book constitutes material copied from the HP books, then there's no way that it counts as "fair use" under the "limited quoting for the purpose of review or criticism" condition.

Harry, that might not be your point, but it is one (of many) her lawyers made.

radleyp · 05-06-2008, 02:32 PM

Alisa, you are the only one talking about emotions. Rowling's emotions are of no concern to me, her aims are. We are talking on this thread about positions being taken by Warner's, their lawyers and her, and using that as evidence in trying to determine their aims. If you disagree, fine, but I think it is of interest to speculate on what Warner's hopes to achieve with this suit. Remember that there are those who bring lawsuits, whatever the cost, simply to frighten their opponents, and that is a matter of business calculations, not emotions.

HarryT · 05-06-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radleyp

Remember that there are those who bring lawsuits, whatever the cost, simply to frighten their opponents, and that is a matter of business calculations, not emotions.

And there are also those who bring lawsuits because they have a justifyable complaint. Have you read the complaint that's been filed? IF it's true (and that's for the court to decide, of course), then it appears to be a pretty blatant case of copyright infringement.

Alisa · 05-06-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radleyp

Alisa, you are the only one talking about emotions. Rowling's emotions are of no concern to me, her aims are. We are talking on this thread about positions being taken by Warner's, their lawyers and her, and using that as evidence in trying to determine their aims. If you disagree, fine, but I think it is of interest to speculate on what Warner's hopes to achieve with this suit. Remember that there are those who bring lawsuits, whatever the cost, simply to frighten their opponents, and that is a matter of business calculations, not emotions.

You were speculating as to what she would like to do. I'm asking you the basis of that speculation.

radleyp · 05-06-2008, 03:15 PM

Harry, it is for the court to decide, so we'll all have to wait. There are those on this thread and elsewhere who think her case is weak. I am not an authority on copyright, so I'll be waiting too. I hope, however, that our would-be lexicographer has learned a lesson: it's tricky to undertake studies of living writers and their work.

Alisa, the evidence is the suit itself and because it is not clear to me what benefit she and Warner's hope to gain, I speculate. That's all, and I don't need to know her to do that.

nekokami · 05-06-2008, 07:38 PM

Neil Gaiman has an interesting followup in his blog, from a copyright lawyer: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/0...-last-one.html

Having some familiarity with the Lexicon itself, I think Warner Bros. and Ms. Rowling are going to have a difficult time making their case. I know they've claimed a very high percentage of unattributed quotes, but I'm not seeing it in my own review of the material.

joblack · 05-06-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Personally I think that Ms. Rowling is 100% in the right, here. Using someone else's characters without their permission - what copyright law calls "creating a derived work" - is unquestionably a breach of copyright.

A lot of people are using the persona 'Jesus' without asking the church (or who's responsible for that mess ;o).

But I agree - she gets a little bit too greedy (and she hates ebooks - so another reason NOT to buy her books).

Ervserver · 05-07-2008, 12:26 AM

Its getting ridiculous, maybe we will get sued for just mentioning her name or book on this thread

axel77 · 05-07-2008, 07:19 AM

Well my personal sense of justice, I'd fisrt say out of the stomach generally she has enough money already.... but justicia is blind and should come to the same ruling as if she was close to starving out of huger. I'm not informed enough on the detailed issues on the case. Secondly IMHO its obvious its not "her" interests that are to be covered, but the publishers, where she is a puppet on strings on this issues.

What I've read its aprox. 10% of her income she dedicates to 3rd world & co. But still better than for example Bill Gates, since she doesn't offer "Potter Books for hungry children" as compared to Gates Foundation.. free windows machines for the future market...

montsnmags · 05-07-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by axel77

...

What I've read its aprox. 10% of her income she dedicates to 3rd world & co. But still better than for example Bill Gates, since she doesn't offer "Potter Books for hungry children" as compared to Gates Foundation.. free windows machines for the future market...

I suggest you read up on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Warren Buffet's "Gift" to the foundation, lists of total endowments of charities, and audits of this transparent Foundation's accounts, Annual Reports, Annual Tax Returns, Grants and committments (specifically look for things like "Global Health" contributions).

This may help alleviate at least some of your misplaced cynicism.

Cheers,
Marc

HappyMartin · 05-07-2008, 08:50 AM

The Gates foundation spends more money inoculating children in Africa than all the African countries spend combined.

MaggieScratch · 05-07-2008, 11:43 PM

J.K. Rowling isn't suing Steve Vander Ark, she's suing his publisher. Do you know why? Because his publishing contract indemnifies him against such lawsuits. It should be pointed out that just about every other publishing contract indemnifies the publisher. One might therefore wonder if Mr. Vander Ark guessed he was on shaky legal ground and yet agreed to publish the book anyway. Apparently there are some personal reasons for it as well (he wants to live in the UK and needs income/employment).

It should further be pointed out that the lawsuit was brought only after the publisher refused, several times, to provide the plaintiffs with a copy of the manuscript before publication. This included the publisher saying that he couldn't send it because a family member had passed away and he wasn't doing business; but it was later shown that during the claimed mourning period, he sold foreign rights to the book in several countries.

I've been following this case from before the lawsuit was filed. The publisher (and the author) have acted from the beginning in an unprofessional and disingenuous manner that make me doubt the veracity of anything they say. In my view, they are no victims.

radleyp · 05-08-2008, 11:35 AM

The publisher indemnified Vander Ark (something which is indeed unusual) because, we must conclude, it was certain it would prevail in any infringement litigation such as this one. Moreover, the publisher was under no obligation to provide Rowling and Warner's with an advance copy - such a demand seems to me a warning that they would sue if the book were published. This is the now familiar fight over publications on books created by living authors but not "authorized" by them! I am not sure who looks better in the matter. It will be interesting to see where the court comes out.

HarryT · 05-08-2008, 01:30 PM

Is that really this guy's real name - "Vander Ark"?

05-08-2008, 11:35 AM	#104
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	The publisher indemnified Vander Ark (something which is indeed unusual) because, we must conclude, it was certain it would prevail in any infringement litigation such as this one. Moreover, the publisher was under no obligation to provide Rowling and Warner's with an advance copy - such a demand seems to me a warning that they would sue if the book were published. This is the now familiar fight over publications on books created by living authors but not "authorized" by them! I am not sure who looks better in the matter. It will be interesting to see where the court comes out. Last edited by radleyp; 05-08-2008 at 01:05 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Heartfire - Orson Scott Card	leebase	Reading Recommendations	0	06-24-2010 05:30 PM
Alvin Journeyman - Orson Scott Card	leebase	Reading Recommendations	0	06-24-2010 05:19 PM
Prentice Alvin - Orson Scott Card	leebase	Reading Recommendations	0	06-21-2010 01:42 PM
Seventh Son - Orson Scott Card	leebase	Reading Recommendations	3	06-18-2010 11:34 PM
"Magic Street" by Orson Scott Card	Andybaby	Reading Recommendations	15	01-20-2009 11:56 AM

05-06-2008, 02:32 PM	#93
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	Alisa, you are the only one talking about emotions. Rowling's emotions are of no concern to me, her aims are. We are talking on this thread about positions being taken by Warner's, their lawyers and her, and using that as evidence in trying to determine their aims. If you disagree, fine, but I think it is of interest to speculate on what Warner's hopes to achieve with this suit. Remember that there are those who bring lawsuits, whatever the cost, simply to frighten their opponents, and that is a matter of business calculations, not emotions.

05-06-2008, 03:15 PM	#96
radleyp Evangelist Posts: 499 Karma: 20623 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: North Salem & NYC, NY Device: Kindle Global, iphone4, ipad	Harry, it is for the court to decide, so we'll all have to wait. There are those on this thread and elsewhere who think her case is weak. I am not an authority on copyright, so I'll be waiting too. I hope, however, that our would-be lexicographer has learned a lesson: it's tricky to undertake studies of living writers and their work. Alisa, the evidence is the suit itself and because it is not clear to me what benefit she and Warner's hope to gain, I speculate. That's all, and I don't need to know her to do that.

05-06-2008, 07:38 PM	#97
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	Neil Gaiman has an interesting followup in his blog, from a copyright lawyer: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/0...-last-one.html Having some familiarity with the Lexicon itself, I think Warner Bros. and Ms. Rowling are going to have a difficult time making their case. I know they've claimed a very high percentage of unattributed quotes, but I'm not seeing it in my own review of the material.

05-07-2008, 12:26 AM	#99
Ervserver Wizard Posts: 2,624 Karma: 1008294 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Iowa, USA Device: Nook Simple Touch	Its getting ridiculous, maybe we will get sued for just mentioning her name or book on this thread

05-07-2008, 07:19 AM	#100
axel77 Fanatic Posts: 584 Karma: 914 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: iliad	Well my personal sense of justice, I'd fisrt say out of the stomach generally she has enough money already.... but justicia is blind and should come to the same ruling as if she was close to starving out of huger. I'm not informed enough on the detailed issues on the case. Secondly IMHO its obvious its not "her" interests that are to be covered, but the publishers, where she is a puppet on strings on this issues. What I've read its aprox. 10% of her income she dedicates to 3rd world & co. But still better than for example Bill Gates, since she doesn't offer "Potter Books for hungry children" as compared to Gates Foundation.. free windows machines for the future market...

05-07-2008, 08:50 AM	#102
HappyMartin Martin Kristiansen Posts: 1,546 Karma: 8480958 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Johannesburg Device: Kindle International Ipad 2	The Gates foundation spends more money inoculating children in Africa than all the African countries spend combined.

05-07-2008, 11:43 PM	#103
MaggieScratch Has got to the black veil Posts: 542 Karma: 2144168 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Southeastern Pennsylvania Device: Kobo Aura One, Kindle Paperwhite 2	J.K. Rowling isn't suing Steve Vander Ark, she's suing his publisher. Do you know why? Because his publishing contract indemnifies him against such lawsuits. It should be pointed out that just about every other publishing contract indemnifies the publisher. One might therefore wonder if Mr. Vander Ark guessed he was on shaky legal ground and yet agreed to publish the book anyway. Apparently there are some personal reasons for it as well (he wants to live in the UK and needs income/employment). It should further be pointed out that the lawsuit was brought only after the publisher refused, several times, to provide the plaintiffs with a copy of the manuscript before publication. This included the publisher saying that he couldn't send it because a family member had passed away and he wasn't doing business; but it was later shown that during the claimed mourning period, he sold foreign rights to the book in several countries. I've been following this case from before the lawsuit was filed. The publisher (and the author) have acted from the beginning in an unprofessional and disingenuous manner that make me doubt the veracity of anything they say. In my view, they are no victims.

05-08-2008, 01:30 PM	#105
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,560 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Is that really this guy's real name - "Vander Ark"?