Amph Orson Scott Card on J.K. Rowling's lawsuit.

Discussion in 'Archive: SF&F: Books and Comics' started by Jedimarine, May 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. yankee8255 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2005
    star 6
    (Though I don't fully fully agree with the rest of your post -- I think SVA has a stronger case than you make it out to be)

    QtheboldpartFT
  2. mandragora Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2005
    star 4
    I've also been following this for a long time. For one thing, before posting an article in such a condescending and insulting tone, he should get his facts straight. Stouffer *lost* the lawsuit against Rowling and was fined for false testimony in court. To leave that bit out is misleading, to say the least. The Lexicon in question is *not* an A-Z guide, as it doesn't include commentary, analysis, or criticism, but merely an alphabethical rearrangement of the Potter books. And as can be seen from the pdf-files of the books, which are also accessible online on the court's website, it doesn't even *quote* properly. And isn't it interesting that an author who according to his wiki entry thinks homosexuality should be punishable by law, and who used to be a fan of Rowlings, now turns on her, after her revelation that Dumbledore is gay. When he'd posted this entry on his blog before about two weeks ago, miraculously no comments showed up besides one, containing the single word "ouch", even though numerous people tried to comment - so much for advocating the right of free commentary.

    What I'd like to know is why no-one hardly ever mentions that this isn't a "Rowling vs RDR (let alone SVA) lawsuit", but a joint lawsuit on the part of Rowling *and* Warner Bros. versus RDR books represented the Stanford lawyers group that's part of a non-profit organisation promoting the extension of the Fair Use clause. Am I the only one, besides the Judge, who can't escape the impression that neither Rowling nor RDR are the driving forces here?
  3. leia_naberrie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2002
    star 4
    That was an interesting article. I don't know enough about copyright laws, etc to make a case on the legality of the trial. I do think that Ceillean is probably right in thinking that this whole trial is a publicity stunt by Rowling & co on behalf of the Harry Potter franchise.

    The reason why the impression is inescapable is due to the actions of Rowling herself to personalize the trial. She chose to give evidence in tears, request that she and SVA not share a courtroom, and made statements about how the trial has affected her work.

    One point in that article I absolutely, 100% concur with:
    Word. Word. Word.

  4. mandragora Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 28, 2005
    star 4
    It's not like the reports mentioned the interests of Warner Bros. and the Stanford Lawyers in this case before Rowling pulled that stunt in the court.

    I think Judge Patterson's right with his concern that this case is "more lawyer-driven than client-driven", and that a settlement would be best for both.

    O.S. Card, the new attorney advocating the interests homosexuals. Please, give me a break.
  5. NYCitygurl NSWFF Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2002
    star 9
    From a lawyer who posted in a JRK thread in fanfic:

  6. Commander-DWH Shiny Costuming & Props Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 3, 2003
    star 4
    Speaking of legal opinions, I've vastly enjoyed the writings of the LJ lawyer praetorianguard. Just for good measure, her thoughts on Judge Patterson's call to settle.

    Fair Use law isn't entirely clear, and I've heard it described by at least one attourney as "frustratingly wishy-washy." I know where I stand, but I'm not the judge. So it will be very interesting to see where this case does end up going.
  7. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I agree with JKR. It's just a summary of her work. Online, that's ok. But when you try to make a profit by summarizing someone else's copyrighted work, that's just cheap and wrong. It's basically making money off of JKR's work without herr permission. She's making her own encyclopedia of Harry Potter eventually anyways, which will probably have much more stuff than was ever revealed in the books.
  8. leia_naberrie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2002
    star 4
    :confused: Well, the (I'm guessing media) reports did mention the parties involved but as usual, this was eclipsed by the "personal interest" angle that the media usually prefer to adopt with Entertainment news. And Rowling's and SVA's tears fuelled that personal interest angle.

    I don't know anything about OSC's politics but - being a SW fan - I disliked his nasty opinions of Star Wars. :p

    Still, the personal history of a debater doesn't - or at least shouldn't - improve the validity of his argument. (That would be like arguing against Rowling's right to defend her copyright because of the parallels between Harry Potter and the Troll movie and the Worst Witch.)

    My 2 cents: It would take a lot of convincing to explain why, in the same book, the heterosexual romance of a pair of ghosts is narrated (in the middle of a battle, no less) but the exact nature of the most defining friendship of Dumbledore's youth, a friendship that was narrated as backstory from the first chapter to the penultimate chapter of the book - was revealed after publication in a Q & A session.

  9. yankee8255 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2005
    star 6
    The judge had said he expected to render his decision in about 3 weeks. The trial ended on April 21, so it's now been 4 weeks, and still no decision. If nothing else, an indication that it is a very close, difficult case.
  10. 1Yodimus_Prime Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2004
    star 4
    I think Card made a great argument and he has some very good points... had this been a totally different situation. Just another example of how 'valid' and 'accurate' are not synonymous. :p

    As someone who has, in the past, skirted that blurry, wrinkled, almost-but-not-quite-entirely-unlike-a-Line that is 'Fair Use,' and twiddled my thumbs in tense anxiety as I waited to see after the fact if I did it right (because there's honestly no way to know beforehand), I have to say that really, it would be better for everyone if the folks in Legal Land just sat their behinds down like good little law children and pounded out a actual, real, complete definition of what, exactly, fair use is and what it constitutes. But they won't cuz they're afraid, so we're left to the interpretations of confused judges and whiney authors to do it for us. And that comment goes for Card AND Rowling.

    Crying on the wittness stand. Sheesh. Gimme a break.

  11. rumsmuggler Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 31, 2000
    star 7
  12. minervas_secretary Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 12, 2008
    I understand he took it upon himself to read the Potter Series and the companion books to aid in his decision because he had to ask Scholastic if they had a copy of the books at the trial. So reading the books + the briefs could make it longer than he anticipated to make his decision.
  13. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Orson Scott Card is so full of himself he makes me sick.

    At any rate, has anyone here read the Lexicon? It sounds less like she's upset about the fact that they're writing a book about Harry Potter, and more about the fact that they've plagiarized her own writing word-for-word, repackaged it and are making big money off a cut-and-paste hack job. Again, that's called plagiarism and if that's the case she's totally in the right, and OSC is just showing a total misunderstanding of how intellectual property works.
  14. NYCitygurl NSWFF Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2002
    star 9
    QFT. Exactly.
  15. yankee8255 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2005
    star 6
    FYI, plagiarism =/= copyright infringement. Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and not attributing the source -- the lexicon does that, as it generally says where it got the info from -- e.g. GOF p. 33. Copyright infringement goes beyond plagiarism in that sense. It's not just enough to attribute the source, if you take too much, even with proper citing, it's still infringement.
  16. NYCitygurl NSWFF Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2002
    star 9
    I believe that JKR won the lawsuit.
  17. PrincessKenobi New Films Manager of DOOM

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 6
    She did in fact win the case. But it may not be done in the court system. There's talk of another suit this one coming from Ark against Rowling.

    I think the biggest reason she brought about the lawsuit, she had hinted at before and then said after Deathly Hallows released last year, that she herself was going to put out an encyclopedia for the world. Which would include some back stories for characters and what happened after the defeat of Voldermort and where everyone is at. Then out of no where Ark decides to make his own. Can't be sure on the specifics, but it is all on mugglenet.com.

    Just my 2 pennies.

    ~PK~
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.