Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
As the Harry Potter copyright infringement trial drew to a close yesterday, the judge urged the two parties to use their “imaginations” and agree to a settlement. Judge Robert Patterson professed a love of literature and invoked Charles Dickens’s Bleak House as cautionary tale, “A very sad story. Litigation isn’t always the best way to solve things."
But in their closing arguments, attorneys for both sides seemed far from a settlement. Rowling’s lawyers argue that the proposed publication of a Harry Potter Lexicon, which is largely drawn from a fan website praised by Rowling in the past, would not only hurt Rowling’s books sales but also Warner Brothers’ marketing of Harry Potter movies and merchandise. The wealthy author also said the book amounted to “the wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."
In Rowling’s final testimony yesterday, Judge Patterson asked her if she could imagine anyone “reading this lexicon for entertainment value?” “Honestly, your Honor, no,” Rowling replied. “But if I may say it without being arrogant or vain, I think there are funny things in there – and I wrote them.” She further said, "I didn't fly here [from Scotland] because I was worried about losing sales. I'm here because I passionately believe that this case is about authors' right to protect their creation. If this book is published, the floodgates will open."
And Rowling insisted the man behind the book and website, Steven Jan Vander Ark – who tearfully told the court Tuesday he felt cast out from "the Harry Potter community" – should be free to publish some sort of Harry Potter book: "I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark from doing his own guide – never ever. Do your book, but please, change it so it does not take as much of my work."”
Judge Patterson, who is deciding the case without a jury, is expected to give his decision in three weeks.
Photo of Rowling speaking to the press outside court Monday courtesy AP/Louis Lanzano.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1145&p=front&a=2
I'm not sure how that's relevant.
why on earth is this getting so much coverage on here? who cares??
can j.k. rowling and her hack writing please go away? like right now?
The jacket must certainly go.
she's pretty hot for a 45 year old billionaire.
April 17, 1908
Shakespeare Judge Wishes for Settlement
As the William Shakespeare copyright infringement trial drew to a close yesterday, the judge urged the two parties to use their “imaginations” and agree to a settlement. The judge professed a love of literature and invoked Chaucer as cautionary tale, “A very sad story. Litigation isn’t always the best way to solve things."
But in their closing arguments, attorneys for both sides seemed far from a settlement. Shakespeare’s lawyers argue that the proposed publication of a Shakespeare Lexicon and Quotation Dictionary by Alexander Schmidt would not only hurt Shakespeare’s books sales but also marketing of plays and movies and merchandise. The author also said the book amounted to “the wholesale theft of my life’s hard work."
In William’s final testimony yesterday, the judge asked if he could imagine anyone “reading this lexicon for entertainment value?” “Honestly, your Honor, no,” Shakespeare replied. “But if I may say it without being arrogant or vain, I think there is very good material in there – and I wrote it.” He further said, "I am not here because I was worried about losing sales or my being the creative source being denied. I'm here because I passionately believe that this case is about authors' right to protect their creation. If this book is published, the floodgates will open."
And Rowling insisted the man behind the book, Alexander Schmidt – who tearfully told the court Tuesday he felt cast out from "the entire Shakespearian" – should be free to publish some sort of Shakespeare book: "I never ever once wanted to stop Mr. Schmidt from doing his own guide – never ever. Do your book, but please, change it so it does not take as much of my work."”
The judge, who is deciding the case without a jury, is expected to give his decision in three weeks. He seemed nonplussed by Shakespeare’s quote above and asked if the famous author would care to discourse on the difference between the original material and a dictionary, lexicon, or compilation of factual information based upon the plays meant as a resource rather than entertainment.
1908? Writers of bad satire should check their dates better. Also, you left in a Rowling reference from your block-copy of the original text.
How dare he steal work after she worked so hard to steal it from other fantasy writers.
she's a greedy bitch.
"If this book is published, the floodgates will open."
And then what? Floodgates open, and ... ? What? What's the parade of horribles that we should be fearing?
Lots of crappy Harry Potter encyclopedias? Lots of other Harry Potter products? And this would be bad for what reason? People would stop writing fantasy novels because they could only make a billion dollars?
Truth is there's only one person being hurt by this encyclopedia, and its Rowling. Heaven forbid she doesn't vacuum up every cent that is in any way related to Harry Potter. The fact that a billionaire could theoretically be hurt by this encyclopedia is far outweighed by strengthening fair use rights for third parties.
Let's hope the court doesn't further aid and abet her draconian enforcement of the Harry Potter copyright monopoly.
Considering that Rowling has donated all of the sales of three Potter-related books she wrote to charity and apparently doesn't mind all the other Harry Potter guides and satire books on the market, it's a bit shortsighted to consider this a "copyright monopoly" or a cash grab. This particular lexicon rehashed every single scene in her books line by line, which was far more than fair use.
Rowling worked for decades on these books, they're her characters and it's her work. I don't see why she's a villain for insisting that her copyright and property be protected.