From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 00:27:34 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:27:34 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? Message-ID: Where do House Elves come from? For quite some time, I've been thinking of composing my own work of fantasy, and I believe I may have truly found an original topic: Where do House Elves come from? As an avid reader of fantasy novels such as authors that include elves in their stories: Tolkien, Wiess/Hickman, Terry Brooks, Eldon Thompson, Christopher Paolini; I have found quite a few similarities describing this mystical race. It seems Tolkien has set the precedent on the mysticism of the modern elf: designated as an official habitant/protector of Earth, for lack of a better term `Immortal:' living forever unless killed, a race which prefers to be apart/reclusive from the humans, possessing the ancient magical arts of the faerie, having a specific synergy with nature/mother earth. JK Rowling has completely omitted any existence of the evles, but rightfully so. One of the main characteristics of the Elf is to remove themselves from the trivial/short-lived existence of human beings. However, she introduces us a class of elves known as the House Elf. The House Elf is, of course, a magical creature that possesses certain abilities that fall outside that of human acknowledgment i.e. the House Elf's principal desire is to serve the owner of the house, a House Elf is servant of that house until a gift of clothing has been offered, the wish of the owner outweighs all other orders, a House Elf's magical ability, such as being able to apparate not following same laws of human's ability, etc. So throughout history, how does the `Elf' become the `House Elf?' Every time I start imagining a way how Dobby comes into existence (well, Kreacher and all the other House Elves as well), I immediately start thinking of Lord of the Rings. Most probably because Hobbits are `Halflings' and could attribute to their smaller size. Yet, there's also Sm?agol, who seems to be a cousin race of the Hobbits. I'd really like to try and make some sort of tie between certain races/characters Tolkien has created. But I have a big problem with Hobbits subjecting themselves as tools of the wizarding world. There has to be an event in which the original form of the House Elf feels the need they actually live to serve their masters. Then this is where I go almost completely blank every time I try to go further...so what could be some explanations.....? o Spider/Wood Elves of Mirkwood become under rule of power dragon/Evil Magician o Sm?agol's actual race became part of Sauron's regime while he spent all those years under the mountain, but with Gollum's action, he becomes a martyr for his race and they feel they can only serve Wizards in order to honor his memory o One of the Hobbits (Pip, Merry, or one of their grandchildren, great-grandchildren) pairs with an elf, and after circumstances, puts their entire off-spring into the situation that makes things happen,.... and then other things,...perhaps then other things happen, ....so other things happen...then things....other things.....then other....other then.... So you can see where I'm going/or not going with this . Anyway, just wondering if this is worth the time even thinking about. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 1 00:57:19 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:57:19 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: BDClark > Every time I start imagining a way how Dobby comes into existence (well, > Kreacher and all the other House Elves as well), I immediately start > thinking of Lord of the Rings. Most probably because Hobbits are > `Halflings' and could attribute to their smaller size. Yet, > there's also Sm?agol, who seems to be a cousin race of the > Hobbits. Magpie: I wasn't sure if you meant where they came from via evolution in the WW or literary speaking. As literary character they're based on brownies, creatures in folklore who do housework but get offended if you pay them (not slaves, though). If you're trying to tie them to Tolkien's races...I'm not sure how you do that, because obviously they have nothing to do with each other. Nor do Tolkien's elves have anything to do with them. And you couldn't write an original work about taking one person's created race and turning them into another. Or are you just saying you want to write a story about your own race that eventually becomes a slave race? -m From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 01:25:54 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:25:54 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bdclark: > Where do House Elves come from? > > For quite some time, I've been thinking of composing my own work of > fantasy, and I believe I may have truly found an original topic: > Where do House Elves come from? > > As an avid reader of fantasy novels such as authors that include elves > in their stories: Tolkien, Wiess/Hickman, Terry Brooks, Eldon Thompson, > Christopher Paolini; I have found quite a few similarities describing > this mystical race. Kemper now: Who you are missing are the Grimms. Their story, 'Die Wichtelmanner', also called the Elves is also known as The Elves and the Shoemaker. The elves (brownies) are more similar to House Elves than are Tolkien's (or Paolini's which is like saying Tolkien's). Grimms' elves are naked and desire to help out and when they're given clothes... iirc. JKR's twist is that wizards took advantage of this, enslaving them. > bdclark: > > So throughout history, how does the `Elf' become the `House > Elf?' > > ... snipping thoughts on LoR and stuff... Kemper now: Please clarify the question. I didn't get what you were saying in the last part about LoR elves... were you trying to make up a fanfic? Kemper From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 05:02:38 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 05:02:38 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kemper now: >. > Please clarify the question. > didn't get what you were saying in the last part about LoR elves... > were you trying to make up a fanfic? > Kemper bdclark0423 perplexed: I'm not really sure what prompted this, but it's been a bit of a fancy of mine to speculate. It's just a bit of a leisurely way of enjoying time fantasizing, and who knows, I may write a book, or I may just end up entertaining my nieces and nephews with an interesting story next Christmas. I completely forgot about the Cobbler or Shoemaker, and this concept of the house elf seems to fit into this role quite nicely. But . > Magpie says: > > If you're trying to tie them to Tolkien's races...I'm not sure how > you do that, because obviously they have nothing to do with each > other. Nor do Tolkien's elves have anything to do with them. And you > couldn't write an original work about taking one person's created > race and turning them into another. Bdclark0423 questions: What happens if I do take one person's ideas in tandem with another's and make my own concept? Isn't this part of our ability to form the basis for unique thought? Isn't that what makes me separate from you? This is really what I'd like to accomplish, to create a point of view that makes people start to think just a little bit more. Sure we have the Elves in Shannara, or Solace, or Keebler Treehouse, or Middle-Earth, or Du Weldenvarden , Finlorian Isles, Hogwarts, etc. But they're all labeled elves. They have pointy ears, live longer than humans do, are known to possess magic, are considered more grounded or logical (have tasty cookies or lembas bread) . I'm curious how our notions of elves came about, and why do we continue to use them in so many of our fictions involving fantasy (including Science Fiction my own personal theory is that Vulcans came from the concept of elves in Star Trek) Okay, one could easily argue it's only the human persona taking a different form, but in essence, what would make the House Elve content with his or her own existence? But, Magpie, when I read this, I immediately cracked up (cuz, at first I though this was a question I needed to be asking about myself): > Magpie then questions: > > Or are you just saying you want to write a story about your own race > that eventually becomes a slave race? bdclark0423 reflectively ponders: hmmmm.. maybe I am subconsciously trying to give myself value? .am I allowing myself to succumb to other's will, or is this to give myself a worthy story? am I trying to find a way I can free myself, or give myself a safe place to be? am I really a slave, do I have my own race? anyway, keep the ideas flowing, and the imangination running.... Cheers! Bdclark0423 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 06:09:02 2008 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: French translation of HP- Black Adder question In-Reply-To: <58721.65916.qm@web55113.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <211294.63560.qm@web53009.mail.re2.yahoo.com> You are doing what my husband and I do...6 Degrees Of Alan Rickman! If you do it with English actors only you get one movie. Alan has acted with every Brit actor in the history of acting, and ALL the Brit actors have worked together so many times that it is frightening! Emma Thompson (Harry Potter, Sense and Sensibility, Judas Kiss, Love Actually), Hugh Grant (Sense and Sensibility, Love Actually) ,Bill Nighy (Love Actually, Blow Dry), David Bradley (Sweeney Todd, Harry Potter). Kenneth Branagh (Harry Potter, formerly married to Emma Thompson) , Liam Neeson (Michael Collins, Love Actually) ...it goes on forever! Not that I mind at ALL! I love all of these actors! Alex Hogan AnitaKH wrote: I saw the Black Adder series on PBS years ago, but I only recently bought the DVD set with all the seasons and some extras, too. I've rewatched through Black Adder III, and so far I've seen Stephen Fry, Miranda Richardson, Jim Broadbent (slated to be Slughorn, in case there's someone out there who hasn't heard) and Robbie Coltrane. And how could I forget Miriam Margoleys (whose name I probably just butchered there). I'd love to see some way they could fit Hugh Laurie into HP, who I think is an absolute hoot in the series, but I'm not sure who he'd play. akh, who had to go on "Black Adder" hiatus, since she has a house guest who's not a fan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------- You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 1 14:19:22 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:19:22 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Bdclark0423 questions: > > What happens if I do take one person's ideas in tandem with > another's and make my own concept? Isn't this part of our > ability to form the basis for unique thought? Isn't that what makes > me separate from you? This is really what I'd like to accomplish, > to create a point of view that makes people start to think just a little > bit more. Sure we have the Elves in Shannara, or Solace, or Keebler > Treehouse, or Middle-Earth, or Du Weldenvarden > , Finlorian Isles, > Hogwarts, etc. Magpie: Sure, but I was asking exactly what you meant by doing that. You could write a story where elves inspired by Tolkien's type of elf (which were inspired from past ideas as well) become house elves, or Tolkien's hobbits become house elves. But if you were writing a fantasy for publication you wouldn't want somebody to say "This person ripped off hobbits and house-elves, and Tolkien and JKR." For instance, I believe when D&D first started "hobbits" was a race and they got in trouble for some sort of copyright issue, which is why in D&D they have a race called halflings that are kind of obviously hobbits but only use that name.:-) Writing about notions of elves of course is something you could do, or make up your own elves based on all the ideas you've gotten from other authors. I just didn't quite understand what you were asking. > > Magpie then questions: > > > > > Or are you just saying you want to write a story about your own race > > that eventually becomes a slave race? > > bdclark0423 reflectively ponders: > > hmmmm.. maybe I am subconsciously trying to give myself value? .am > I allowing myself to succumb to other's will, or is this to give myself > a worthy story? am I trying to find a way I can free myself, or give > myself a safe place to be? am I really a slave, do I have my own > race? Magpie: Things to ponder, definitely! -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 17:05:12 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:05:12 -0000 Subject: Literary quiz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > > > > Can you upload it for me? I want to see and hear you singing it! Or how about just the lyrics, CMC style? > > > > Seriously, goddlefrood. Was that what you meant, or was "single" intended in the sense of single-volume novel? > > Goddlefrood: > > Single as in a 45 on vinyl. It was No. 1 in the UK for some weeks, > iirc. The lyrics are available here: > > http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/kate+bush/wuthering+heights_20077284.html > > and there's a video of Kate Bush performing it here: > > http://www.veoh.com/videos/e180759CwJfzY6C > > I would perform it for you, but I fear my high Cs are not what they once were. Carol responds: Thank you. that was, well, creepy! How it became a hit when the sung lyrics are virtually unintelligible, I don't know. (The transcriber had some problems with spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, but I got the idea. Carol, who still wants a video of Alla performing that song (April Fool!) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 17:04:36 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:04:36 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "bdclark0423" wrote: > > > Where do House Elves come from? > bboyminn: Well, of course, the answer is, they come from the fertile inspired imaginations of men (and women). And the exact nature of their beginning varies with the particular authors imagination. If you mean the historical origins of these creatures in the real world, then the answer is the same. They come for Fairytale and Mythology, which in turn springs from the imagination. Keep in mind that there is not one single race or model for elves. The more ancient and mythological elves are tiny wood sprites of various types, very similar to the Potter- world fairies which create the fairy lights. Sometimes they are mischievous, sometimes they are mischievously cunning, and sometimes they are mischievous but not really all that smart. In other cases, they are larger, yet still small, as in leprechaun, which are also a race of elves. I suspect that in the Potter world, JKR's goblins are an evolutionary blend of the dwarf race and the elf race, though the dwarf race as a magical race is not really mentioned in the books. House-elves are a unique race of elves related to but different than Leprechauns, which are not mentioned but surely exist in the Potter world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_Elf ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechauns ) House-elves are a literary offshoot of the Brownie or helper elf, which in turn while it is found in British mythology, is probably of Scandinavian origin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomte But is also found in Roman and Slavic mythology. Domovoi (Slavic)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domovoi Lares (Roman house god)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lares_%28Roman_deities%29 The Brownie elf, which is closest to the Potter House-Elf, is also related to the Helper-Elves found in the tales of the Shoemaker, and the Tailor, which are essential the same tale. The elves mischievously sneak into the struggling Shoemaker (or Tailors) shop and make the most wonderful products imaginable. The Shoemaker (or Tailor) then become very rich and successful, and while they appreciate their good luck, they are determined to find out the source of these goods. So, they stay up late and hide, and see the elves, and realize that they are indeed magical creatures. Ultimately, they try to reward the Elves which annoys and offends the elves to no end, and they, the Elves, pack up and leave. The End. But those elves are a very different race from the Tolkien Elves. These are incredibly intelligent, long lived, and magical beings who usually are great warriors as well as great thinkers and artists. Elves, in general, are part of Germanic Mythology, where elves were extremely tiny forest creatures associated with fertility. Though again the earliest references to general Elves comes from Nordic Mythology where they are called "?lfar" or "?lfr". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf Elves would generally be considered a subset of the Fairy race, which in turn, in the minds of some, is a further subset of the greater race of Sprites, which in turn is a subset of the greater realm of overall magical creatures. WikiPedia is your friend. See also- Sprites- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28creature%29 Fairies- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy Legendary Creatures- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendary_creature Lists of Fictional Species- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_species Lists of Legendary Creatures- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legendary_creatures List of various Mythological Gods- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lithuanian_household_gods and so on and so forth. Your elves are what you make them, they can be large, medium, small, or tiny. They can be smart or dim. They can be fierce warriors and/or brilliant intellects, artist, and musicians. That's the beauty of magical creatures, they can be anything you want them to be. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From donnawonna at att.net Tue Apr 1 12:51:43 2008 From: donnawonna at att.net (Donna) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 08:51:43 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Dispensing Sugar (was Re: Full English Breakfast with **Brown Sauce**) References: Message-ID: <47F22FDF.000006.02392@LIFESAVER> Donna: My Mother was a waitress and wore a little white something on her head and a white starched apron, sans frills. A good tip was 25 cents and an outrageously high tip was $1. The work was hard but she kept us fed, clothed, and a roof over our heads. Can't forget carhops :-). Carol]: > In the U.S. (where we use granulated sugar, or, rarely, sugar cubes) for coffee or tea, we just have a sugar bowl (with a lid) and, often, a matching creamer (cream pitcher): > Lee: > Ah--but think back to about 20-something years ago before diners and restaurants started using packets of sugar; remember the old sugar shakers, some of which would get stuck and you'd have to unscrew the lid and clear the pour-tap?? Some had just a hole, some had a sort of flippy thing on the top. I loved those better than the packets!! Carol responds: My goodness. I'd forgotten those annoying things! Those were the days when ice water in a Phoenix restaurant was cloudy and tasted like dishwater, and some of the diners had juke boxes on the tables. I'm trying to think what else was different. I vaguely remember waitresses in little caps and frilly aprons, but maybe I'm thinking of the old sitcom "Alice." Carol, remembering the strawberry sundaes at a long-defunct Flagstaff restaurant called Yiya's [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 18:00:53 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:00:53 -0000 Subject: The willing suspension of disbelief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > Since several posters on the main list are discussing the willing suspension of disbelief , I thought I'd bring up the original context of the phrase from Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Biographia Literaria." > bboyminn: > > This read very similar to the attitude I've always had. When ever someone come across a seeming error or inconsistency in the books, they can take one of two paths. One is to assume it is literally a mistake and that it is wrong wrong wrong and no explanation can ever alter that. My position is to assume there is an explanation, but we simply didn't see it, didn't understand it, or it is off-page but there and real none the less. > For example, Ron suddenly knowing that Draco has the Hand of > Glory. > > I choose to suspend disbelief in the sense that I choose to believe that a non-existent world does exist and that there are laws of science and reason that govern it. In making that choice, by extention, anything that happens in the world does have an explanation even if I don't know what it is. Carol responds: Well, yes and no. Yes, your choosing "to believe that a non-existent world does exist" is an example of "the willing suspension of disbelief . . . that constitutes poetic faith," which is a temporary suspension of our disbelief in what we know to be unreal (or even impossible in the world as we know it) so that we can react to these unreal things as we read about them as if they were really happening. But, no, your personal belief that "there are laws of science and reason that govern [the nonexistent world]" has nothing to do with the willing suspension of disbelief as Coleridge defines it. I was trying to make clear that the concept has nothing to do with being jarred by seeming inconsistencies (or Flints) or even lapses in verisimilitude like the ones that Betsy perceives related to the Gringotts break-in. It's the rational reader allowing himself or herself to believe for the moment in the supernatural (if we're reading Coleridge's poems) or magic (if we're reading the HP books) or in Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, and Balrogs (as well as wandless magic and the power of the spoken word and a number of other aspects of a Middle Earth before all the lands were changed in LOTR) or in wands, Wizards, Witches and a Wizarding World within our own mundane Muggle world (in the HP books). We've willingly suspended our disbelief long before Hagrid taps on a brick with his umbrella and enters Diagon Alley with Harry, and we continue to suspend it for the entire series (which is a whole lot longer than anything Coleridge had in mind when he wrote the lyrical ballads!) That is, the willing suspension of disbelief is supposed to last as long as it takes to read the work in question, or part of it (a lyrical ballad or a few chapters of HP or LOTR), enabling us to feel the emotions we would feel (terror or horror in the case of "Christabel"--that is, terror *for* Christabel and horror and revulsion *at* Geraldine) if the situation were real and we were forced to watch it helplessly. Or consider Frodo facing Shelob or Harry with Bathilda!Nagini for a similar situation. (What *is* this fixation with female monsters or monstrous female characters?) It's what enables us to experience an unreal situation (being chased by Inferi, for example, or even a Quidditch game) as if it were real. Anyway, the willing suspension of disbelief (which, for some of us HP fans, extends far beyond the act of reading to our daily lives because these characters inhabit our souls) has nothing to do with believing that HBP!Ron somehow knew about the Hand of Glory, which is inconsistent with information found elsewhere in the series (CoS). (You can supply explanations for it that satisfy you; I can't. To me, it's just a Flint, JKR forgetting to check her "facts.") When I encounter a detail like that, for which I'm forced to find an explanation, whether I succeed or not, I'm not suspending my disbelief. I'm jarred out of a world that I still "believe" in because of an inconsistency that amounts to a flaw in the books. I still suspend my disbelief in the WW and Harry and Ron and Draco as I would with any set of fictional characters in an imaginary world that interests me even when a particular inconsistency momentarily jars me into thinking that that particular detail is an error, but I have to shake off the annoyance of that flaw in the writing (check your facts, pleas, JKR!) before I return to the books. So, to summarize: "Believing" in the WW and Hogwarts and HRH and Snape and Dumbledore and Dementors and Inferi and Vanishing Cabinets, and experiencing the associated emotions, especially being terrified by things that we know don't exist (a potion to resurrect Vapormort involving blood, flesh, and bone, for example) is the willing suspension of disbelief. A moment of skepticism because of a flaw in verisimilitude (*That* wouldn't happen! or *that's* not right!) is not the same thing, whether we suppress our skepticism and continue reading (my way) or find an explanation) your way. Think about your emotions on reading DH. If you were caught up in the excitement and the despair and the terror and the exhilaration, if you cheered for Neville when he slew Nagini with a Sword that came to him out of a Sorting Hat magically summoned by Voldemort and felt terror and pity for Ron as he confronted Locket!Tom, you were suspending your disbelief in the manner that Coleridge had in mind. Carol, hoping that she has clarified the concept From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 18:19:03 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:19:03 -0000 Subject: Potterverse characters and tea. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > .... > > > > According to a website I just found, half-and-half is mainly used in beverages and doesn't whip. It has about half the butterfat of what the British call "single cream." > > bboyminn: > > Just a pointless side point, is Half-and-Half, half milk and half cream, or is it cream with Half the fat removed. I always assume half cream/half milk but never really knew. Carol responds: It's half whole milk and half cream (hence the name). I assume that the cream is "single cream" (about 20% butterfat rather than 40% as in "double cream." The milk dilutes the fat content to some degree (by less than half, though, since whole milk also contains butterfat, unlike skim milk, which is just, well, whey (the watery part of milk with all the cream taken out). bboyminn: > I went to the local grocery store, and as long as I was there I stopped to look at cream; the choices were Whipping Cream, Half-and-Half, and assorted artificial creamers. Nothing else. I couldn't even find just plain 'cream'. > > No point there really, just an observation. Carol: I think that some U.S. stores also sell heavy cream--or used to before everyone became so cholesterol conscious. > > Carol, who likes coffee creamer and ice cream but not real cream, which tastes sour and heavy to me. > bboyminn: > > Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried Ice Cream in your coffee? It can't be the cheap huge bucket of ice cream ice cream, that has fillers and other junk in it that won't dissolve. Good quality ice cream of whatever flavor you prefer, though vanilla works best, is kind of good. Though, we'll ignore the calorie count for the moment. And, of course, it cools off the coffee, so you have to reheat it. Carol responds: Well, the point of coffee is that it's hot. Cooling it off ruins the effect, and reheating it, either in a microwave or a coffee maker, ruins the flavor. However, I'll drink a cappuccino on a hot day. All the sugar and flavoring (caramel, for example) covers up the sour taste of the cream, which probably happens with ice cream as well. Carol, who isn't concerned about calories (5'10", 127 pounds), just taste (and cost) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 18:38:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:38:16 -0000 Subject: The willing suspension of disbelief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > The moment we accept that Wizards and magic exist, that a green-lit spell can kill anyone it hits except the Boy who Lived, we've suspended our disbelief, whether we like the way the series ended or not. Just discussing the WW and Dumbledore as if they were real (all the while knowing in some part of our minds that it's all just words on paper and the result of readers' minds interacting with the author's imagination in its paper incarnation) involves the willing suspension of disbelief, as does admiring or liking or criticizing the characters as people (as opposed to analyzing them as, say > Potioncat: > For me it was before DD even showed up, when Harry was even able to string words into a sentence in spite of his treatment by the Dursleys. I wasn't able to do that on my first attempt at HP, but once I did at a second attempt, I enjoyed the ride. Carol responds: I chose DD showing up on Privet Drive because, aside from the owls and the mysterious cat, he's the first example of magic in the books. Both his sudden appearance (along with the Putter-Outer) and the next unambiguous example, McGonagall's transformation from a cat into a woman, occur before Harry appears on the scene as a fifteen-month-old baby fast asleep in Hagrid's arms. And Hagrid himself, a "giant" astride a flying motorcycle, requires the willing suspension of disbelief. If you've gotten that far, you've accepted the WW as "real," and you're ready for Killing Curses and Fidelius Charms and accidental magic and all the rest of it (in particular Harry's scar and its peculiar powers). Believing that Harry can be okay despite the Dursleys is, I suppose, willing suspension of disbelief of another sort, but it's not what Coleridge had in mind when he invented the concept. > > Carol, not sure whether Coleridge and his sometime-friend Wordsworth belonged on the main list or not and deciding it was best to post about them here > > Potioncat: > So suspended is my disbelief, that I thought you wrote that you didn't know if they belonged "to" the main list, so you posted here so they would see it. Carol: LOL! Considering that they died, respectively, in 1834 (Coleridge) and 1850 (Wordsworth), thinking that they were HPfGu list members certainly would require the willing suspension of disbelief! Carol, thinking that Coleridge would feel right at home on the main list (though his pedantic style might annoy the other list members) but Wordsworth would be out of his element (he'd want to leave his books and go listen to "the sounding cataract") From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 19:17:24 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:17:24 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Where do House Elves come from? > > For quite some time, I've been thinking of composing my own work of fantasy, and I believe I may have truly found an original topic: Where do House Elves come from? > > It seems Tolkien has set the precedent on the mysticism of the modern elf: designated as an official habitant/protector of Earth, for lack of a better term `Immortal:' living forever unless killed, a race which prefers to be apart/reclusive from the humans, possessing the ancient magical arts of the faerie, having a specific synergy with nature/mother earth. > JK Rowling has completely omitted any existence of the evles, but > rightfully so. > However, she introduces us a class of elves known as the House Elf. > a House Elf's principal desire is to serve the owner of the house, a House Elf is servant of that house until a gift of clothing has been offered > > I'd really like to try and make some sort of tie between certain races/characters Tolkien has created. But I have a big problem with Hobbits subjecting themselves as tools of the wizarding world. There has to be an event in which the original form of the House Elf feels the need they actually live to serve their masters. > > > > o Sm?agol's actual race became part of Sauron's regime while he spent all those years under the mountain, but with Gollum's action, he becomes a martyr for his race and they feel they can only serve Wizards in order to honor his memory > > o One of the Hobbits (Pip, Merry, or one of their grandchildren, great-grandchildren) pairs with an elf, and after circumstances, puts their entire off-spring into the situation that makes things happen Carol responds: As others have noted, there's no connection between JKR's House-Elves, which are derived from folklore (see the Great House-Elf debate, a mercifully abandoned topic on the main list). I speculate that naked Brownies first became House-Elves when a Wizard offered them a tea towel rather than actual clothes, and they came to think of clothes, not as a route to freedom (what would a free Brownie do? Take off his clothes and serve some other human? That, after all, is what they like to do) but as a form of dismissal and disgrace. Also, of course, the human involved would have to be a Wizard and not a poor Muggle like the Shoemaker. (JKR probably didn't think out their origins. She just wanted to adapt the concept for her own purposes, first the poor abused Dobby who adores Harry Potter and then the seemingly treacherous Kreacher, with his contrasting relationships with the Black brothers.) At any rate, however much Dobby and Kreacher sometimes sound like Gollum (who, of course, is not an Elf of any sort), there's no connection between JKR's Elves and Tolkien's. Tolkien's Elves, as you may know, are derived from Scandinavian mythology. There are hints of the realm of Faerie, as well. (I would start with Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories" if you haven't yet read it, along with the Appendices to LOTR.) If you're really a fan of Tolkien's world, the series of books edited by his son, Christopher, will tell you more than you ever wanted to know. And, much as I hate to recommend Wikipedia, the article on Elves (actually, "Elf") is helpful as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf Meanwhile, I stumbled onto this article, which is accompanied with a picture of Harry Potter from the Scholastic edition of HP but is primarily about the history of Elves and Tolkien's alteration of the concept: http://www.elvesweb.com/ Carol, who wants to address Steve's response to this message but will do so in a separate post From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Apr 1 21:29:24 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:29:24 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Potterverse characters and tea. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carol responds: > Well, the point of coffee is that it's hot. Cooling it off ruins the > effect, and reheating it, either in a microwave or a coffee maker, > ruins the flavor. Ali: I would contend that cold-brewed coffee (also called a Toddy something or other or maybe it's something or other Toddy ...) is FAR superior to hot coffee and that, therefore, the point of coffee is that it's delicious, not that it's hot. Try it. I'm a bit of a coffee snob at times (um...I'm considering a trip to Vermont for my favourite beans if that explains the extent of it), and even from a mid-quality bean, I managed to get very good coffee that I would normally only associate with a superior quality bean. (Cold brew tends to brew a fairly strong coffee, too, so you can add hot water if you want hot coffee.) Carol: > However, I'll drink a cappuccino on a hot day. All the sugar and > flavoring (caramel, for example) covers up the sour taste of the > cream, which probably happens with ice cream as well. Ali: I think that you should just start keeping vanilla simple syrup around and not mess with ice cream - I love ice cream & coffee, but milks and creams don't contain lactic acid because they're not acidic somehow. Vanilla simple syrup + cold brewed coffee = fabulous. Trust me. Now I go back to my thumb twiddling. Darn work making me stay even though I've finished my work for the day. :( ~Ali From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 20:04:09 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:04:09 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: bdclark wrote: > > Where do House Elves come from? > Sm?agol's actual race became part of Sauron's regime while he spent all those years under the mountain, but with Gollum's action, he becomes a martyr for his race and they feel they can only serve Wizards in order to honor his memory > > One of the Hobbits (Pip, Merry, or one of their grandchildren, great-grandchildren) pairs with an elf, and after circumstances, puts their entire off-spring into the situation that makes things happen Carol responds: I forgot to answer this part of the original post. Gollum as a martyr to his "race," assuming that any of the Stoorlike proto-Hobbits who inhabit that region still remain, could be written as a fanfic, but considering that he was "shunned by his relations when visible" and kicked out of his grandmother's home (not to mention that he murdered Deagol, which he was probably suspected of doing after they both disappeared), I'm not sure that it would work. But I don't see any connection between such a story and JKR's House-Elves, especially since there are only five Wizards (Istari) in LOTR, two of whom are never seen, two of whom wouldn't want such servants, and one of whom (well, I won't say what happens to Saruman, just in case there's anyone on the list who doesn't know.) As for Merry or Pippin marrying an Elf, it didn't happen. Pippin married Diamond of Long Cleve, a Hobbit, and named his son Faramir. We don't have that much information about Merry, but he also took a Hobbit wife and had a son. However, I *suppose* that one of their descendants could marry a Wood Elf or even one of the remnant of the Sindar (not a Noldorin High Elf since all of them have left Middle Earth). Stranger things have happened, and there's a precedent of sorts in "The Hobbit." One of Bilbo's Took ancestors married a fairy wife. IIRC, that accounts for the adventurous streak in the Tooks. But the Hobbits, whether or not they intermarried with other "races," would not become willing servants to Wizards or to humans (Tolkien's Wizards are Maiar like Sauron and Melian the Maia and even Ungoliant, the ancestor of Shelob, who was not originally a horrible giant spider.) > bboyminn wrote: > I suspect that in the Potter world, JKR's goblins are an evolutionary blend of the dwarf race and the elf race, though the dwarf race as a magical race is not really mentioned in the books. Carol responds: I agree that the *concept* of JKR's goblins includes elements of Dwarves (to use Tolkien's plural) in Norse mythology (small, fierce people who craft powerful magical weapons and armor--we see this aspect of them in Tolkien's Dwarves), but I don't see anything that her Goblins have in common with her House-Elves except small size and pointed ears. The Goblins are warlike and rebellious and resent the wand-wielding Wizards. They speak their own language, Gobbledygook. The House-Elves, in contrast, are generally submissive and happy to serve humans (not, however, a master that they don't respect). They seem to have no language of their own and apparently speak only a somewhat mutilated version of their human masters' language. Dwarves (or Dwarfs, as in "Snow White ane the Seven Dwarfs") do appear in CoS, resentfully commissioned by Lockhart to deliver valentines and forced to dress in silly costumes. (He should have asked the House-Elves, who would have done it willingly, but JKR was going for comic effect and presumably didn't want to reveal that Hogwarts had a staff of some hundred House-Elves too early in the series.) One huge difference between Tolkien and JKR is that, for him, the blending of "races" (actually, species), especially Orcs and Men, is abhorrent (and, for human women forced to mate with Orcs, it would be unspeakably horrible), whereas for JKR, even a marriage between giants and Wizards is not objectionable (though giantesses are likely to abandon their puny half-human offspring), and it appears that Flitwick has a Goblin ancestor somewhere. (These examples are instances in which we *really* need to suspend our disbelief. Surely, marriage partners should be members of the same species, roughly the same size for practical reasons and able to produce fertile offspring, but JKR wasn't thinking about logistics or even the unlikelihood that a nice wizard like Mr. Hagrid Sr. would be attracted to a giantess. If we think it's hard for Wizards to meet Muggles as potential marriage partners, how does a Wizard go about finding and marrying a female giant (or obtaining a license to marry one?) Is it "prejudice" to consider a Giant or a Troll an unsuitable marriage partner for a Witch or Wizard? Not in my view. It's common sense. Carol, who thinks that JKR's goblins are folklore goblins ("an ugly or grotesque sprite that is usually mischievous and sometimes evil and malicious," M-W Online) with the intellectual capacity and armor-creating skills of the Dwarves of Norse mythology From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 1 22:36:27 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:36:27 -0000 Subject: Potterverse characters and tea. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" wrote: Ali: > I would contend that cold-brewed coffee (also called a Toddy something > or other or maybe it's something or other Toddy ...) is FAR superior > to hot coffee and that, therefore, the point of coffee is that it's > delicious, not that it's hot. Try it. Geoff: Interesting that, to me as a UK resident, toddy is Hot Toddy which is hot water with whisky and honey added and has nowt to do with coffee.... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 23:13:22 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:13:22 -0000 Subject: Potterverse characters and tea. - Cold Brew Coffee? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "P. Alexis Nguyen" wrote: > > ... > > Ali: > I would contend that cold-brewed coffee (also called a Toddy > something or other or maybe it's something or other Toddy ...) > is FAR superior to hot coffee ..., and even from a mid-quality > bean, I managed to get very good coffee that I would normally > only associate with a superior quality bean. (Cold brew tends > to brew a fairly strong coffee, too, so you can add hot water > if you want hot coffee.) > bboyminn: So... Cold Brew Coffee... ground coffee soaked in room temperature water for many hours until it become drinkable? Could you tell us your Cold Brewing Process? > > Carol: > > However, I'll drink a cappuccino on a hot day. All the sugar > > and flavoring (caramel, for example) covers up the sour > > taste of the cream, which probably happens with ice cream > > as well. > > Ali: > I think that you should just start keeping vanilla simple > syrup around and not mess with ice cream - I love ice cream & > coffee, but milks and creams don't contain lactic acid because > they're not acidic somehow. Vanilla simple syrup + cold brewed > coffee = fabulous. Trust me. > > Now I go back to my thumb twiddling. Darn work making me stay > even though I've finished my work for the day. :( > > ~Ali > bboyminn: But Ice Cream Coffee is very different from Vanilla flavor coffee. The goal it to have thick rich creamy flavored coffee. The 'Creamy' part being the most significant part. Personally, I find generally flavor coffees (vanilla, Amaretto, pumpkin spice, etc...) to be a nasty pointless thing to do to coffee. However, really good vanilla ice ceam in coffee is a treat. As to re-warming the coffee, if you over do it, you are probably right, but you don't have to re-warm it to boiling, just hot enough to drink. Two minutes in my microwave (an old one) from room temperature to drinking hot is more than enough. To re-warm to drinkable temperature would rarely be more than a minute. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Tue Apr 1 23:30:17 2008 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Christian_Stub=F8?=) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:30:17 -0000 Subject: Full English Breakfast with **Brown Sauce** In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter, "Carol" wrote: [snip] > Yes. It worked perfectly for me (on Netscape 7.2, which I > still prefer to the fancy new browsers). The link as you > have it above is broken and would require copying and > pasting in the last part. Here's the whole link again: > > http://www.ifranks.com/silverware/sugar_casters/sugar_casters.html > > If that doesn't work, try their home page at > > http://www.ifranks.com/index.html (Not www.ifranks.com) > > Carol, hoping that the links work I used an unbroken link, actually - it was only broken in *my* post because of the way it was quoted in my post. When I tried accessing the site on Friday, I did so by clicking on the link in your earlier message #35823 - and as I mentioned in my previous post, I also tried going to the main site www.ifranks.com itself. Clicking on the link in your message did not work on Friday. Typing in www.ifranks.com in the browser did not work on Friday. Nor did either of those work on Saturday, or on Sunday, or on Monday, or on Tuesday (today) until early evening. Then, suddenly, both clicking on the link in your earlier message and typing in just www.ifranks.com worked - this happened before I saw your and Steve's replies today. I also saved the set of tabs when I tried to open those pages in Opera on Friday, and opened that set whenever I turned my computer on - the tabs were set to automatically reload at given intervals *without* actually changing the address. This also failed to work, until early evening today - now it works, however. So when I now can get into the site with the same method, the same links that failed on Friday, that leads me to conclude the site was down. Either there was a DNS-problem with my ISP (which I doubt - nslookup gives the same IP-address (83.223.101.110) for the URL today when it works as it did on friday when the URL did not work for me); or the site was down those several days; or for some reason the site was for a while set to refuse visitors from Norway. Christian Stub? From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 00:14:01 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 20:14:01 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Potterverse characters and tea. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Geoff: > Interesting that, to me as a UK resident, toddy is Hot Toddy which is > hot water with whisky and honey added and has nowt to do with coffee.... I knew that would come up. A hot toddy is the same thing on this side of the pond, but a Toddy coffee is something else altogether. I looked it up on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toddy_coffee A hot toddy is great, too, especially when the hot water is replaced with hot apple cider, but that wasn't what I meant. Besides, I think hot toddies make lousy summer drinks. :) ~Ali From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 00:30:44 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 20:30:44 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Potterverse characters and tea. - Cold Brew Coffee? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bboyminn: > So... Cold Brew Coffee... ground coffee soaked in room > temperature water for many hours until it become drinkable? > > Could you tell us your Cold Brewing Process? Ali: I don't have a personal brewing process, per se. I use the NY Times "recipe" of 1/3 cup of coffee grounds and 1.5 cups of water - I do it in my water bottle, so I put coffee in to the 3 oz line then add water to the 12 oz line. The rec. soak time is 12 hrs at room temp, but I keep it in my fridge and accidentally soaked it for 48 hrs this past time (no problems). I heard something about this method producing a less caffeinated brew. I seem to recall something about how manufacturers use water to decaffeinate beans, so maybe that makes sense somehow? I don't know. I drink coffee for the taste; the caffeine seems to make no difference to me (I've gone to be after drinking warm coffee because warm liquids make me sleepy). bboyminn: > But Ice Cream Coffee is very different from Vanilla flavor > coffee. The goal it to have thick rich creamy flavored > coffee. The 'Creamy' part being the most significant part. Ali: Oh I agree on the creamy part. I take my coffee with cream (or ice cream) if I take anything at all. However, Carol mentions how she doesn't like the acidity of creams and the like, which means that she's probably not going to go that route - a good quality ice cream tends to be higher in butterfat and therefore acidic. Soy milk sinks in coffee and doesn't give that desired creaminess anyway. Therefore, I recommended vanilla simple syrup. It's a treat (after all, vanilla is $1-10 per pod and wholly wonderful) and adds something to coffee that may serve as an alternate addition to coffee. That's all I gots. :) ~Ali From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 02:03:43 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:03:43 -0000 Subject: Potterverse characters and tea. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > Well, the point of coffee is that it's hot. Cooling it off ruins the effect, and reheating it, either in a microwave or a coffee maker, ruins the flavor. > > Ali: > I would contend that cold-brewed coffee is FAR superior to hot coffee and that, therefore, the point of coffee is that it's delicious, not that it's hot. Try it. Carol again: I should have said that the point of *hot* coffee (aside from being delicious) is that it's hot, and milk or half-and-half or ice cream or anything that takes away the heat spoils the effect, as does letting it sit and cool to room temperature. And reheating does something to the coffee that spoils the flavor, making it taste burned or bitter. Cold coffee is, I suppose, an acquired taste. I might try it some hot day as an alternative to iced tea or an Arnold Palmer or raspberry lemonade. > > Carol: > > However, I'll drink a cappuccino on a hot day. All the sugar and flavoring (caramel, for example) covers up the sour taste of the cream, which probably happens with ice cream as well. > > Ali: > I think that you should just start keeping vanilla simple syrup around and not mess with ice cream - Carol: I've never heard of vanilla simple syrup.Turns out that simple syrup is two parts sugar (type unspecified--I assume granulated table sugar), one part water, boiled and cooled. You just add vanilla (a teaspoon? I lost the page) to make vanillas simple syrup. It's used in Margaritas, of all things. Heck, I used to make my own pancake syrup using brown sugar, water, and vanilla after it cooled. Tasted just as good if not better than the bottled maple syrup you buy at the grocery store. Carol, who thought that vanilla simple syrup must be another British thing until the first page she Googled turned out to be about Arizona (and Margaritas, which are everywhere you look in this state) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 02:24:07 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:24:07 -0000 Subject: Potterverse characters and tea. - Cold Brew Coffee? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ali: > Oh I agree on the creamy part. I take my coffee with cream (or ice cream) if I take anything at all. However, Carol mentions how she doesn't like the acidity of creams and the like, which means that she's probably not going to go that route - a good quality ice cream tends to be higher in butterfat and therefore acidic. Carol responds: Right. :-) Ali: Therefore, I recommended vanilla simple syrup. It's a treat (after all, vanilla is $1-10 per pod and wholly wonderful) and adds something to coffee that may serve as an alternate addition to coffee. > > That's all I gots. :) Carol: Oh, no. Don't tell me that you crush your own vanilla pods! Won't vanilla extract do (real, not artificial)? Carol, now wondering whether to use the flat side of her silver knife as Teen!Snape recommends for a sopophorous bean or puncture it with something sharp as you would with a Snargaluff pod From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 14:00:40 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:00:40 -0000 Subject: Potterverse characters and tea. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "P. Alexis Nguyen" wrote: > > Carol responds: > > Well, the point of coffee is that it's hot. Cooling it off > > ruins the effect, and reheating it, ..., ruins the flavor. > > Ali: > I would contend that cold-brewed coffee (also called a Toddy > something or other or maybe it's something or other Toddy...) > is FAR superior to hot coffee and that, ... > > ~Ali > bboyminn: A quick search of Google for 'Toddy Coffee' yeilds many results. The most important link is to the site of the man who holds the patent on 'cold brew' technology, though the process is relatively simple. Here is a link to the page where you can get information, instructions, equipment, and ready-brewed Cold Brewed Coffee Concentrate. The Toddy Cafe - http://www.toddycafe.com/about/ The short version - "n 1964, after graduating as a chemical engineering student at Cornell, Todd Simpson tasted a cup of coffee created with a liquid concentrate made by an ancient Peruvian process." "Inspired, he developed and patented The Toddy, a cold brew system that creates a superior-tasting cup of STEAMING HOT coffee. And, with 67% less acid than hot brewed coffee, it's easier on sensitive stomachs." Here is a link to a .PDF from an independent lab that compared the same coffee Cold Brewed, standard Mr. Coffee, and Starbucks. The acid levels are amazingly different. Cold Brew Lab Tests- http://www.toddycafe.com/customerservice/ICB_Toddy.pdf It seems that Cold Brew is 2.45 times less acidic that Mr. Coffee, but **4.47** times less acidic than Starbucks. They used at Starbuck House Blend Medium Roast coffee for the test. I think that says a lot about Starbucks brewing process. People always complain that Starbuck plain coffee taste bitter and burnt. I always assumed it was the 'roast' but maybe it is because they use a long brewing process with boiling water. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 4 00:30:34 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:30:34 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Steve/bboyminn: > > WikiPedia is your friend. > > > > Your elves are what you make them, they can be large, medium, > small, or tiny. They can be smart or dim. They can be fierce > warriors and/or brilliant intellects, artist, and musicians. > > That's the beauty of magical creatures, they can be anything > you want them to be. > > Just passing it along. > > Steve/bboyminn > bdclark0423: yep, totally agree with all you say and, of course I use wikipedia, it's my bible.... bdclark0423. From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 4 00:48:38 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:48:38 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > > [other post should also be included here, but you can read....] > > As others have noted, there's no connection between JKR's House-Elves, > which are derived from folklore ... > >...JKR probably didn't think out their origins. She just > wanted to adapt the concept for her own purposes > > > > Carol bdclark0423: [applause here] Carol, you are superbly versed! Best, bdclark0423 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 4 17:31:35 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:31:35 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: [other post should also be included here, but you can read....] > > As others have noted, there's no connection between JKR's House-Elves, which are derived from folklore ... > >...JKR probably didn't think out their origins. She just wanted to adapt the concept for her own purposes > bdclark0423: > [applause here] > Carol, you are superbly versed! Carol again: Thanks. Earning a PhD in English does train you as a reader! ;-) Carol, happy that you liked her post and blushing a little as she types! From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 23:47:45 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:47:45 -0000 Subject: Has Disney lost its magic? Message-ID: Has Walt Disney lost his magic? Obviously since his own death in 1966, his legacy of `Disney Magic' seems to be dying as well. My statement could easily suggest that it is I, who is not believing in the magic, but I would hardly agree. I continue to find wonder and amazement in that which captures and demands my imagination. Admittedly, as a child I was inspired and drawn to Walt Disney. Sunday nights were the best way to end the weekend and get ready for another week of school, while watching the Wonderful World of Disney. I even remember, sneaking up so early in the morning and turning on the TV to watch reruns of the Mouseketeers before my dad would wake up and finish his shower. However, after few revisions in its name and format, and with cable and satellite channels coming into being, this including the Disney Channel (and who knows, my own process of maturing) many of the captivating qualities so commonly associated, were starting to loose their appeal. As I was flipping through the channels the other day, I saw the following promotion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lECi9Weorw&feature=related If you take the time to watch this, you will immediately realize why I had mindlessly stopped channel surfing. My first emotion was that I was appalled. My second thought was this is offensive to me and my fellow Potter-heads. Eventually I just asked "How could Disney be stooping so low?" I don't have children. In fact, the only connection I have with being a parent or having a connection with children today is through my family: my nieces and nephews. My brother-in-law made mention during our last family get-together, that he's so sick of watching Disney and Nickelodeon. Unfortunately, after spending only 20-30 minutes watching those channels, I could only fully agree. Before I allowed myself to form a true opinion, I did look at what i was able to google and wiki regarding what `Wizards of Waverly Place' is all about only to determine if, in fact, this was just a complete attempt at insulting the general public's intelligence. I do believe this seems to be a bit of a spoof on Harry Potter (and perhaps just this one special episode), but after watching other clips of the show, it truly seems the writers/creators have absolutely no true talent. The pilot itself takes the viewer about six minutes to realize that the main characters actually have magical powers, but then they try to keep them hidden or secret in order to conform to mainstream society. I then watched an episode in the second series, and you really do need to watch up to ten minutes before there's any distinction of the difference in what being a 'Waverly Wizard' is and being your normal cookie-cutter, hooky joke, sit-com standard family (which is: there's no difference at all). In fact, I'm not only insulted that it borrows off of the newest trend in the global interest in the Potterverse, it continues the same `Bewitched', `I Dream of Jeanie' My Favorite Martian' `Mr. Ed' `Adams Family `Munsters' mentality that you must at all costs hide who you truly are so that you can be accepted. Perhaps these shows actually helped us realize we need to stop hiding who we truly are, and I would think they've served their purpose. I think nowadays, however, we have changed our view and are learning to celebrate our differences, plus to give the message to our youth that hiding your differences, in order to fit in, may actually give the wrong message. Whatever the message may end up being, in reality this show is poorly written and follows just about every clich? that has been done not only on television, but in literature as well. I'm just curious if everyone else is aware of this program because they have children, and it really has something to offer. If I truly had my way of giving a message to children it would be, of course: If you're really interested in being entertained in something that is just a little bit beyond the ordinary, look to the extraordinary: like reading (Harry Potter, perhaps?). Just one more thing, as a child, every time our family went to Florida for vacation, we would go to Walt Disney World. Well, this past Fall, my mother and I took a vacation to visit Orlando (we have a few old family friends there) and even though our hotel was literally at the gateway to the resort, I truly felt that I was not missing anything...there were truly other 'magical' things that made the trip worth while. bdclark0423 From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 03:12:32 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:12:32 -0000 Subject: Has Disney lost its magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bdclark: > Has Walt Disney lost his magic? Kemper now: No... his magic is like that of the Pied Piper. > bdclark: > ... > I don't have children. In fact, the only connection I have with > being a parent or having a connection with children today is through > my family: my nieces and nephews. My brother-in-law made mention > during our last family get-together, that he's so sick of watching > Disney and Nickelodeon. Unfortunately, after spending only 20-30 > minutes watching those channels, I could only fully agree. Kemper now: I don't want to speak about the lame Disney show. It sucks. In fact, I can't think of anything worth watching on that channel. But Nickelodeon is different. It offers at least one, very good show. Avatar: the Last Airbender. Book One (like the first season)is not as strong as Book Two which is not as strong as Book Three. Well... the first half of Book Three. Nick has been dragging it's spongy feet on airing the last half. (I've been phoning and sending emails complaining of the lameness of iCarly and insipidness of that girl fish show both of which have usurped Avatar's timeslot.) Kemper, requesting for links to any good Avatar groups From fanaticguy at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 01:54:10 2008 From: fanaticguy at yahoo.com (fanaticguy) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:54:10 -0000 Subject: Good Collection Stuffs! Message-ID: Recently, I was visited a cool website that provide good collection stuffs of Harry Potter. And the address of the website is: http://harry-potter-products.blogspot.com/ fanaticguy From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 6 14:30:48 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:30:48 -0000 Subject: Has Disney lost its magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: BDClark: > Has Walt Disney lost his magic? Magpie: With a channel to fill up, I'm not surprised there's a lot of dumb shows, including what looks like a parody of HP. But that was never part of Disney's magic to begin with. Wonderful World of Disney and Micky Mouse Club were kind of isolated ideas. Long after Walt Disney's death they were doing Toy Story and Beauty and the Beast, which both fit that legacy very well. I do think they're struggling with the trend for more post- modern, "hip" animation for kids like Shrek that's different from their own style. But I wouldn't judge them by everything you'd need to fill up an entire channel. I would just agree with Kemper that Avatar: The Last Air Bender is awesome, and yet Nickelodeon's done a pretty bad job promoting that. They don't seem to know what to do with it. -m From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 6 15:46:01 2008 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 6 Apr 2008 15:46:01 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/6/2008, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1207496761.25.81343.m43@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 6, 2008 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 16:46:56 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:46:56 -0000 Subject: Has Disney lost its magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > With a channel to fill up, I'm not surprised there's a lot of dumb > shows, including what looks like a parody of HP. But that was never > part of Disney's magic to begin with. Wonderful World of Disney and > Micky Mouse Club were kind of isolated ideas. Long after Walt > Disney's death they were doing Toy Story and Beauty and the Beast, > which both fit that legacy very well. Kemper now: Even though Toy Story (Pixar) is owned by Disney, I wouldn't say it's a product of Disney. Though, I suppose Disney did recognize Pixar's superiority. Beauty and the Beast (and later, Hunchback of Notre Dame, and many earlier cartoons) are fluffy versions of the original version which is what Disney is awesome at accomplishing. Pixar is Dorthy; Disney is the Wizard. Or something... Kemper From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 6 17:40:41 2008 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 6 Apr 2008 17:40:41 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/6/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1207503641.44.63067.m57@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 6, 2008 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Sun Apr 6 20:26:42 2008 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:26:42 -0000 Subject: Seven Signed HP Books to be Auctioned/Raffled at Accio Conference this July! Message-ID: Accio UK is pleased to announce that J.K. Rowling has generously donated a full set of all seven adult edition Harry Potter books, with each book individually signed by the author, to Accio UK to raise funds for the National Literacy Trust. Six of the books will be separately auctioned at the Accio 2008 conference, and the winner of the seventh book will be chosen from tickets sold at a raffle to be held at the conference. Accio 2008 is a conference to be held at Magdalen College from 25-27 July 2008 that will bring together academics and adult fans to discuss the Harry Potter series in the Hogwarts- like setting of the University of Oxford. Accio 2008 seeks to enhance the appreciation of J.K. Rowling's novels as works of literature in her home country. A limited number of registrations are still available. For more information or to register for the conference, please visit: http://www.accio.org.uk/index.shtml . For more information on the National Literacy Trust, please visit: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/ . Phyllis Morris, Accio 2008 Co-Chair From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 21:59:02 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:59:02 -0000 Subject: Where do House Elves come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Okay, can I just say I'm disappointed/embarrassed with the lot of you? Today, I was actually in the middle of putting in the LoR DVD when I saw that TNT was airing the entire series. If Dobby and Gollum don't correlate to each other, then see this clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=zjWGgWnd6Ec&feature=related There's obviously more to my intellect than humor (the exact amount has yet to be determined). But there are obvious characteristical traits that are so similar that I now understand why I had even made mention the martyrdom of Sme?gol to his race in the first place. Basically, his true intentions were to only serve his master, and when he broke that solemn promise, he suffered death. Plus, there's the whole wide eyed, pointy ear thingy they both have . plus an old decrepit cloth to cover his little undescribables.... bdclark Life is like a pensieve, it only works if you know what to fill it with [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 7 00:15:53 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:15:53 -0000 Subject: Order of the Phoenix in Vold War I / suspended Potioncat / Coffee Message-ID: Carol wrote in : << I certainly don't think that the Order members died because of DD's throwing the Order members' lives away. They were probably aware of the taboo if it existed, even if DD in his ivory tower wasn't. I think it was Peter's treachery, which began at least a year before the Potters died according to Sirius Black, that got so members killed. >> I'm inclined to think that the main reason Order members were killed was that they were doing dangerous work. I'm not clear on what a non-governmental organization could do to fight Lord Voldemort, but I imagine that one thing they did was to find out through spies when the DEs had scheduled a 'hit' on some family, and then guard that family. In some cases, family members could be smuggled into hiding, but the adult Auror or whatever had been targeted because of thwarting some DE plans has to stay and work because his/her work is so important against Voldemort, so if there were always two Order members hanging out with the guy, and six DEs attacked the house in the night, there'd be a big duel with at least the bad guys using lethal curses. Did they try to find evidence identifying DE spies/operatives in the Ministry? Then what: hand the evidence over to trustworthy Aurors like Moody, try to turn the spy or use him/her to send false information to LV, kill the spy, try to lift any DE Imperius Curse that had been cast on the spy? That sounds like the same work as done by Aurors. Did they do research to detect and cure the Imperius Curse and to find shields against all three Forbidden Curses? But I still wonder what it means that DD taught his followers to call Voldemort by name, but doing so turned out to be a bad thing for Harry. Potioncat wrote in : << So suspended is my disbelief, that I thought you wrote that you didn't know if [Coleridge and Wordsworth] belonged "to" the main list, so you posted here so they would see it. >> I love it! bboyminn wrote in : << Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried Ice Cream in your coffee? >> An nectar and ambrosia luxury is a scoop of vanilla chocolate chip ice cream in a large cup of Nestle's Hot Chocolate (which I always make with boiling water and then add some homogenized milk, not try to make steamed milk to make it with). The ice cream melts almost immediately so the drink is on the cool side -- cooler than hot summer room temperature -- but its so yummy it takes immense will power not to inhale it instantly, and then have none left. There are two reasons for putting milk or half-and-half (or cream, if one can get it) into coffee. One is to cool it down so as not to burn one's mouth, and the other is to disguise the nasty taste. Sugar meets only the second of these reasons. I suppose powdered creamer meets the second for people who can stand it, which I can't. I used to know a man who drank like 16 cups of coffee a day and he took his coffee half homogenized milk, half sugar, and a teaspoon of coffee. I once said to him: "You don't like coffee' and he was shocked: "I LOVE coffee! I drink 16 cups a day!" and he seemed unconvinced by my explanation: "If you liked coffee, you wouldn't cover up all the coffee taste.' Kemper replied to Steve bboyminn in : << By 'fancy gourmet', you mean coffee drinks (mochas, lattes, etc.) right? Because black coffee has zero fat and zero calories.>> A real espresso is just burned bitter black coffee, a real cappuchino is just espresso with steamed milk, a real latte is just black coffee with steamed milk ... adding sugar and putting cream on top is an American addition ... the very high calorie ambrosias are the, whatyacallem, blended iced mocha latte cream ... I just call them 'cappuchino slurpees'. Sometimes I have trouble ordering one at my two favorite places, Panini and Union Bagel, because I can't remember the different names they have for the same 'milk shake'. I don't have them often, for money reasons not health-nazi reasons. bdclark wrote in : << sorry that's what happens whin you drink dnirk.... when ya drink and post.... >> Not drinking coffee and tea (my pathetic attempt to combine threads). Steve bboyminn quoted in : << a cup of coffee created with a liquid concentrate made by an ancient Peruvian process. >> Either the process was originally used for something other than coffee, or the word 'ancient' needs a more exact definition. Coffee comes from Ethiopa and is not native to the New World, so Peruvians couldn't have done anything with coffee before the Spanish brought it to Peru. Yes, I know there is evidence that Polynesians brought chickens to Peru before European contact, but I know no evidence that the Polynesians had coffee at that time. The Wikipedia article on History of Coffee says 'The earliest mention of coffee may be a reference to Bunchum in the works of the 10th century CE Persian physician Razi, but more definite information on the preparation of a beverage from the roasted coffee berries dates from several centuries later.' 'Coffee beans were first exported from Ethiopia to Yemen. Yemeni traders brought coffee back to their homeland and began to cultivate the bean.[citation needed] The first coffee house was Kiva Han, which opened in Istanbul in 1471[3]' 'The first European coffee house (apart from those in the Ottoman Empire, mentioned above) was opened in Italy in 1645.[3]' 'The introduction of coffee to the Americas is attributed to France through its colonization of many parts of the continent starting with the Martinique and the colonies of the West Indies where the first French coffee plantations were founded. The first coffee plantation in Brazil occurred in 1727 when Lt. Col. Francisco de Melo Palheta smuggled seeds from French Guiana.' The dates stated are so shockingly recent that I feel that the only place that could have an 'ancient' process for coffee is Ethiopia. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Apr 7 09:57:43 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:57:43 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Has Disney lost its magic? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F9F017.2010502@yahoo.com> Magpie: > With a channel to fill up, I'm not surprised there's a lot of dumb > shows Wow, do I agree! Until my two-year-old started watching TV a few months ago, I hadn't watched TV at all in the last twenty years. What little I've seen on DC convinces me I haven't missed much. Or even less. I used to complain about shows that made adults look stupid. What do you do with a show -- or a whole channel -- in which EVERYBODY is an idiot? We don't get Nickelodean in Taiwan, however, so I can't comment on it. CJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 01:48:28 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:48:28 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of the sort Message-ID: Alla: I posted this quote elsewhere, but recently I want to talk and talk about this book by Kay in particular and pretty much all his books as some people know. But probably this book I love the best. So why am I posting this quote from Song for Arbonne here? Well, to introduce Snape like character, whom I love so much and hoping that some people read this book, since God knows I bugged Zara who recommended this book to me enough :-) Now, when I am saying that the character described in this quote is Snape like, it does not mean of course that all circumstances of his life is just like Snape's, but in a very important way and I believe more than one he reminds me of Snape. "He was huge, Blaise saw, robed in extravagantly expensive dark green satin trimmed with white fur, even in summer. Easily sixty years old, his grey hair cropped close like a soldier's, he stood lightly balanced, for all his size, and his posture was straight backed and arrogant. "What am I doing here?" he echoed mockingly. The voice was memorable, deep and resonant. "Isn't this where the singers are? Is this not Carnival? Cannot a man seek the solace and pleasure of music at such a time? "You hate musicians," Bertrain de Talair said harshly, biting off his words. He still had not turned. "You kill singers, remember? "Only the impertinent ones," the other man said indifferently. "Only those who forget where they are and sing what they should not. And that was a long time ago, after all. Men can chance, surely, as we move towards our waiting graves. Age can mellow us." There was nothing mellow about that tone though. What Blaise heard was mockery, savage, acid-dipped" - p.133 From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 8 02:35:36 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:35:36 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of the sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > I posted this quote elsewhere, but recently I want to talk and talk > about this book by Kay in particular and pretty much all his books as > some people know. But probably this book I love the best. > Potioncat: So, tell us more, without spoilers. Is this a series? Is "Song for Arbonne" the first? Is it fantasy or sci-fi? Sounds like something I might like to read. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 02:45:27 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:45:27 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of the sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > > > I posted this quote elsewhere, but recently I want to talk and talk > > about this book by Kay in particular and pretty much all his books as > > some people know. But probably this book I love the best. > > > > Potioncat: > So, tell us more, without spoilers. Is this a series? Is "Song for > Arbonne" the first? Is it fantasy or sci-fi? > > Sounds like something I might like to read. > Alla: It is definitely stand alone, it is fantasy, but historical fantasy, countries are based on very well researched cultures of medieval France, etc. You may like it yes. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Tue Apr 8 02:52:04 2008 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:52:04 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Has Disney lost its magic? Message-ID: Magpie: With a channel to fill up, I'm not surprised there's a lot of dumb > shows CJ: Wow, do I agree! Until my two-year-old started watching TV a few months ago, I hadn't watched TV at all in the last twenty years. What little I've seen on DC convinces me I haven't missed much. Or even less. I used to complain about shows that made adults look stupid. What do you do with a show -- or a whole channel -- in which EVERYBODY is an idiot? We don't get Nickelodean in Taiwan, however, so I can't comment on it. Sandy - stepping up on her soapbox: One of the things I am finding difficult about growing old in America is the lack of decent television shows and channels. We older folks, even though there are so many of us now, just don't count. I have seen every channel I have ever liked go to crap in the past few years, including the History Channel. Garbage programming rules. The saddest and hardest loss was A&E. I waited years to get TVLand and once I did it had already tanked. About the Disney Channel: Way back in '91, during the original Gulf War, I subscribed to the Disney Channel. Back then it was a premium channel that you had to pay for. My son was 12 years old at the time, and sensitive to and fearful of the war, and, quite frankly, I wasn't too thrilled with sitting in my living room watching a war on television. I had a sick husband, a sensitive child and a crappy job; I didn't need to watch the war for entertainment. Once we added DC it was the only channel I would allow the television to be set on. It was wonderful. There was something for all of us to watch. Good, quality movies, Avonlea, Ozzie & Harriet, the good Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes, old Disney cartoons - the list goes on. It continued to be the only channel we watched long after the war was over. It was when they changed the format and it was no longer a premium channel that it started going downhill, and it has now reached rock bottom. Thank goodness I am an avid taper because I have all of those wonderful shows on tape and am now in the process of converting them to disc. I recently called to cancel my cable because it just cost too darned much for the little bit of good programming I was getting. I wound up keeping it only because they offered me a two year price lock deal that lowered my bill $21. I would have missed Jon and Kate and some things on HGTV, but it wasn't worth what I was paying for it. Even Court TV has gone to crap - Tru TV, not reality;actuality. Whatever. It's my extensive tape and disc library that provides most of my tv enjoyment now. I have lots of *good* Disney shows for the grandkids when they are around, not that they necessarily appreciate it. They are used to watching garbage. Sandy, who didn't rant like she usually does about all of this because she just got home from work and is too tired. **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 18:17:40 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:17:40 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > So why am I posting this quote from Song for Arbonne here? Well, to > introduce Snape like character, whom I love so much and hoping that > some people read this book, since God knows I bugged Zara who > recommended this book to me enough :-) > > > Now, when I am saying that the character described in this quote is > Snape like, it does not mean of course that all circumstances of his > life is just like Snape's, but in a very important way and I believe > more than one he reminds me of Snape. > > "He was huge, Blaise saw, robed in extravagantly expensive dark green satin trimmed with white fur, even in summer. Easily sixty years old, his grey hair cropped close like a soldier's, he stood lightly balanced, for all his size, and his posture was straight backed and arrogant. > "What am I doing here?" he echoed mockingly. The voice was memorable, deep and resonant. "Isn't this where the singers are? Is this not Carnival? Cannot a man seek the solace and pleasure of music at such a time? > "You hate musicians," Bertrain de Talair said harshly, biting off his words. He still had not turned. "You kill singers, remember? > "Only the impertinent ones," the other man said indifferently. "Only those who forget where they are and sing what they should not. And that was a long time ago, after all. Men can chance, surely, as we move towards our waiting graves. Age can mellow us." There was nothing mellow about that tone though. What Blaise heard was mockery, savage, acid-dipped" - p.133 Carol responds: I'm confused, Alla. The big, fat, sixty-year-old character who used to kill singers reminds you of Snape, and you like this character? The only Snapelike feature I can detect is a mocking tone. And seeking solace in the pleasure of music sounds more like slughorn (with his piano and victrrola) than Snape. By the way, I saw something interesting with regard to Snape on the "Today" show this morning or one of the early morning shows, anyway; I flip channels, so it might have been "The Early Show" or GMA): Two authors who were telling people how to get what they want at work gave the following advice for power seekers: Wear black, don't smile, and move slowly. I'm not sure whether sweeping out of a room counts as moving slowly, but Snape (except on those memorable occasions when he loses control) is aware of every gesture, every movement, every facial expression, every tone of his voice, every word that he speaks. Carol, who sees Slytherin elements in the character you described but thinks he combines aspects of Phineas Nigellus (arrogance, a mocking tone, and dark green satin robes), Slughorn (age and a body build that reflects self-indulgence, and Voldemort (killing those who displease him), but little of Snape except intelligence and a trace of sarcasm and nothing to like From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 18:45:53 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:45:53 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > I'm confused, Alla. The big, fat, sixty-year-old character who used to > kill singers reminds you of Snape, and you like this character? The > only Snapelike feature I can detect is a mocking tone. And seeking > solace in the pleasure of music sounds more like slughorn (with his > piano and victrrola) than Snape. > > By the way, I saw something interesting with regard to Snape on the > "Today" show this morning or one of the early morning shows, anyway; I > flip channels, so it might have been "The Early Show" or GMA): Two > authors who were telling people how to get what they want at work gave > the following advice for power seekers: Wear black, don't smile, and > move slowly. I'm not sure whether sweeping out of a room counts as > moving slowly, but Snape (except on those memorable occasions when he > loses control) is aware of every gesture, every movement, every facial > expression, every tone of his voice, every word that he speaks. > > Carol, who sees Slytherin elements in the character you described but > thinks he combines aspects of Phineas Nigellus (arrogance, a mocking > tone, and dark green satin robes), Slughorn (age and a body build that > reflects self-indulgence, and Voldemort (killing those who displease > him), but little of Snape except intelligence and a trace of sarcasm > and nothing to like > Alla: LOLOLOLOL. This is one quote Carol. I brought it up because I thought it may remind of some Snape's characteristics - voice and mockery, yes, but NO - his actions remind me of Snape. Hey, ask Zara if you do not believe me, who as you know an avid Snape fan and she will tell you that this character reminds her of Snape in a very positive way. And, um, not that it matters, but just for clarity, where did you find the word fat in description of his? I am rather fat myself, so it is not like I will have a problem with it, but this character is a warrior, a soldier, besides being a ruler in his dukedom. Fat is NOT a word that is about him at all. And heeee, killing people, well, let's just say that appearances can be deceiving. VERY deceiving. So, um, to answer again - for me, he is Snape in his acid mockery and tone, but for you as Snape fan, he will remind you of Snape at his best, trust me. Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 19:41:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:41:31 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > I'm confused, Alla. The big, fat, sixty-year-old character who used to kill singers reminds you of Snape, and you like this character? The only Snapelike feature I can detect is a mocking tone. And seeking solace in the pleasure of music sounds more like Slughorn (with his piano and Victrola) than Snape. > > > Carol, who sees Slytherin elements in the character you described but thinks he combines aspects of Phineas Nigellus (arrogance, a mocking tone, and dark green satin robes), Slughorn (age and a body build that reflects self-indulgence, and Voldemort (killing those who displease him), but little of Snape except intelligence and a trace of sarcasm and nothing to like > > Alla responded: > > LOLOLOLOL. > > This is one quote Carol. I brought it up because I thought it may > remind of some Snape's characteristics - voice and mockery, yes, but > NO - his actions remind me of Snape. Hey, ask Zara if you do not > believe me, who as you know an avid Snape fan and she will tell you > that this character reminds her of Snape in a very positive way. > > > And, um, not that it matters, but just for clarity, where did you > find the word fat in description of his? this character is a warrior, a soldier, besides being a ruler in his dukedom. Fat is NOT a word that is about him at all. > > And heeee, killing people, well, let's just say that appearances can be deceiving. VERY deceiving. > > So, um, to answer again - for me, he is Snape in his acid mockery and tone, but for you as Snape fan, he will remind you of Snape at his best, trust me. Carol responds: I guess I got the idea that he was fat from "huge" (cf. Dudley) and from his apparent self-indulgence, at least with regard to music. He seems, from this one quoted passage, to be the kind of man who would also take pleasure in food and wine (and possibly women--okay; I'm leaping to unwarranted conclusions here). But, really, he didn't remind me of Snape at all, even a Snape who somehow became headmaster with nothing to regret and wore Slytherin green and silver instead of black. However, your point abuut appearances being deceiving is intriguing. That much, as well as the sarcasm, certainly seems Snapelike. You mentioned the author's last name (Kay), but I don't think you gave his(?) full name (or, if you did, I missed it). Carol, hoping that Alla will post a bit more about this book without giving anything away From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 19:55:03 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:55:03 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol responds: I guess I got the idea that he was fat from "huge" (cf. Dudley) and from his apparent self-indulgence, at least with regard to music. Alla: Ah. Okay. No, he is very tall and very proportionally built. And heee, listening to the music would be the last reason why he came to Carnival that night. Carol: He seems, from this one quoted passage, to be the kind of man who would also take pleasure in food and wine (and possibly women--okay; I'm leaping to unwarranted conclusions here). Alla: You mean endulging himself in pleasures of life basically? No, not really. As to the women, I just say ( and this is known from the first pages, so it is not giving anything away honestly) that long time ago he had a wife, who was young and beatiful. But I have not noticed any other women with him in the novel, like ever. Carol: However, your point abuut appearances being deceiving is intriguing. That much, as well as the sarcasm, certainly seems Snapelike. Alla: Yes, deceiving in more ways than one. Carol: You mentioned the author's last name (Kay), but I don't think you gave his(?) full name (or, if you did, I missed it). Alla: Guy Gavriel Kay " A Song for Arbonne" Carol, hoping that Alla will post a bit more about this book without giving anything away. Alla: Ugh, SO HARD. Ask me questions and I will happily answer. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 20:09:17 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:09:17 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > > You mean endulging himself in pleasures of life basically? No, not > really. > > As to the women, I just say ( and this is known from the first pages, > so it is not giving anything away honestly) that long time ago he had > a wife, who was young and beatiful. But I have not noticed any other > women with him in the novel, like ever. Alla: Oh oh and before you or anybody else asks, no he did not sell the prophecy about her to the Dark Lord or anything like that :-) From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 20:36:32 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 16:36:32 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Potterverse characters and tea. - Cold Brew Coffee? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carol: > Oh, no. Don't tell me that you crush your own vanilla pods! Won't > vanilla extract do (real, not artificial)? I've never tried with vanilla extract. I would worry about the alcohol vapourising in the hot liquid and diminishing the flavour of the vanilla, but other than that, why not try? It's a pretty cheap test. On the other hand, if you feel like blowing a few bucks, vanilla beans are pretty cheap when you buy it from the right places: http://stores.ebay.com/Vanilla-Products-USA > Carol, now wondering whether to use the flat side of her silver knife > as Teen!Snape recommends for a sopophorous bean or puncture it with > something sharp as you would with a Snargaluff pod No silver knife needed, but a puncture then scraping of the interior would be helpful (though not necessarily needed). :) ~Ali From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 21:10:46 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:10:46 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Has Disney lost its magic? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bdclark0423: > Has Walt Disney lost his magic? First, to address the show this post originally pointed to, Wizards of Waverly Place doesn't copy anything so old as Bewitched but is probably modeled off of the Sabrina the Teenage Witch (which was probably modeled of Bewitched) franchise. It's an update of the old for the current generation. I've seen it. It's not bad, just predictable. It's a kid's show. I also don't think it's trying to send any sort of message about hiding your differences. It's following standard convention: magical people hide their magic. Even without their magic, the kids on the show fit in fine with their peers (considering their archetypal personalities, of course). If this show is sending any message, it's more of the "magic is cool, and hey, wouldn't it be nice if I could have some?" As for Disney, has it lost it's magic? I mean, it's not as magical as it once was, but I'm also not 7 yrs old anymore. I still think it's plenty fun. The Broadway shows are still going strong (and, possibly, even that disaster of the Little Mermaid will get a few years' run). Plenty of folks are still visiting Disneyland and Disney World. It can still be called "the most magical place on earth" without most folks snickering - and really, I'd wager that many would even agree. Pixar is as strong as it is thanks to Disney. They produce the movies, yes, but remember that the stories are still coming from the Disney machine. (Realistically, Pixar is also part of that Disney machine.) Moreover, Pixar wasn't doing a whole lot big until Disney came along. It's all Disney, whether we call it Touchstone or Pixar or Miramax or whatever. I'll be perfectly honest in that I do watch the Disney Channel now, so yes, I'm watching garbage by, apparently, many folks' standards, but I think I understand the appeal to the current generation of kids (or at least the demographics that Disney is going for with the channel). It's a matter of relatability and wishing. Kim Possible: a girl who can do everything but still has to do her homework and listen to her parents. Wizards of Waverly Place: folks who have magical skills but still has to the mundane of daily life. As far as I can tell, Nickelodeon is going for the same type of thing. Every once in a while, there's a hit (Avatar), but it's mostly just bad. But then, I seem unable to understand the appeal of Spongebob Squarepants, and that's just the biggest hit amongst kids *and* many people my age, so maybe I'm speaking out of turn in this case. Anyway, that's *my* rant on this subject. ~Ali From YasminOaks at aol.com Tue Apr 8 21:55:24 2008 From: YasminOaks at aol.com (YasminOaks at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:55:24 EDT Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Has Disney lost its magic? Message-ID: Hi. Just my opinion here. I haven't watched tv in over 20 years. I know that sounds kind of crazy in today's world, but I just haven't found any shows that I like to watch on tv any longer. That being said I love old BBC shows, such as "Are you Being Served", "Robin Hood", "The Black Adder", "To the Manor Born" or "Mr. Bean." I haven't found any show that would even care to watch on regular tv though in so many years. I may be the only person who has never watched "American Idol" or "Friends" or any of the popular shows. My life keeps me very busy as I breed and show Arabian horses. I also love to read. I am always reading any chance I can get. I have two daughters who are ages 12 and 9. They have grown up with no tv, but with plenty of good movies or children's shows on DVD. My youngest is really into "High School Musical", so in August of 2007 I actually got satellite tv. I really only was interested in The Disney Channel and Animal Planet really. I am actually very pleased with the Disney Channel. They have some really cute family shows on. My girls really love "Hannah Montana", "The Suite Life of Zac and Cody", "Life with Derek", "That's so Raven" and "Cory in the House". What darling shows. Some can be kind of stupid, but they really are enjoyable. Personally I don't like "Wizards of Waverly Place". I find it really stupid and poorly written. It had the potential to be so much better. I did see the commercials for what did look to be a spoof on HP. Everyone knows I am such a HP fan, yet I only took this as a form of flattery. We never did watch the episode, so I have no idea of how well done it was or not. We also get Nick and the girls really love "Drake and Josh" and "Zoey 101", but most of the other shows on there are really awful in my opinion. Of course I can't say I have watched many others as the previews just look so horrible. There is a show called "The Naked Brothers" and it looks like it is a rock band made up of grade school age children. That just seems so wrong to me. Maybe it is a nice show, but it just seems to be to be very wrong. Let children be children, is my belief-- not rock stars or a lifestyle of a teen. Again this is all just my opinion and I am by far the least educated when it comes to television shows. Hugs, Cathy, who prefers a good book to any tv show any day. **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 23:36:42 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:36:42 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > I guess I got the idea that he was fat from "huge" (cf. Dudley) and > from his apparent self-indulgence, at least with regard to music. zgirnius: Hee. The comment about music was almost certainly sarcasm, another trait in common with Snape. Though I guess/interpret here, because the way this character is written shares something with the way Snape is written. We hear a lot about him, we see him in scenes in which the narrator shares the POV of other characters, but never his. (I am indebted to my HP addiction and posters here, notably you, Carol, for my ability to make this observation. I'd never thought in these terms before coming here). And he is not just large, as Alla indicated - he is an accomplished, and even at 60, still dangerous, warrior. Another trait I'd say he shares with Snape, if in an entirely different style of fighting. Also like Snape, he is the antagonist of a mostly likable character. (Not of the main character, though - the main character is a third party). The business of the dead musicians *is* a reflection, in part, of a real difference between his character and Snape's, in my opinion, which Alla may or may not share. Snape of DH would not in my view have reacted with deadly violence in response to a comparable provocation. But it also partly reflects the difference in time, place, and status of the characters. Urte is a feudal magnate in a medieval world, nearly the equal of his sovereign. His society does not view him as a murderer for his action. Nor would his society consider a duel to the death, a bad way to settle a personal matter. > Alla: > Guy Gavriel Kay " A Song for Arbonne" zgirnius: How to describe Kay? We really ought not to say more on the subject of Urte. Kay gets shelved with fantasy, but his books usually do not include a lot of showy magic. (This one has some magical owls that serve specially selected clergy, and a poison/healing approach that might be magical, or just fictional. That's about it, and I do not recall offhand that the magic matters much, in terms of being a deus ex machina or anything like that. It's more local color, for a world that is not ours). And his books have a flavor of being historical fiction, even though they are set in a fictional world. If the Albigensian Crusades had concerned doctrinal differences in a fictional religion, and had been contemplated in the days of Eleanor of Aquitaine, and impinged on her realms - the result might have borne some relation to this book. The details about the roles of noblemen and how they pass the time, and dress, and eat, and fight, and entertain one another, have the feeling of being well-researched rather than made up on the fly, and jive well with historical fiction I have read. Kay was Christopher Tolkien's assistant in editing "The Silmarillion". Anyway, I would heartily second the recommendation (obviously, since I'm the one who got Alla hooked). From bumbledor at comcast.net Tue Apr 8 23:50:26 2008 From: bumbledor at comcast.net (bumbledor) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 19:50:26 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Has Disney lost its magic? References: Message-ID: <000601c899d3$5319ad40$6401a8c0@bumbledor> You are not alone. Black Adder, Mr, Bean, Are u being served, very funny shows. And No, I do not watch American idiots (idol), Friends, or CSI, or Law and order, or survivor or any of those shows designed for the drama starving people. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Has Disney lost its magic? >> That being said I love old BBC shows, such as "Are you Being Served", >> "Robin > Hood", "The Black Adder", "To the Manor Born" or "Mr. Bean." > > I haven't found any show that would even care to watch on regular tv > though > in so many years. I may be the only person who has never watched "American > Idol" or "Friends" or any of the popular shows. My life keeps me very > busy as I > breed and show Arabian horses. I also love to read. I am always reading > any > chance I can get. From drdara at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 00:00:23 2008 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 17:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Has Disney lost its magic? Message-ID: <931171.54126.qm@web65505.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Sabrina the teenage witch was orignally a comic book, she was a character from the Archies comics and then got her own comic book and eventually was made into a tv series ----- Original Message ---- From: P. Alexis Nguyen To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 3:10:46 PM Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Has Disney lost its magic? bdclark0423: > Has Walt Disney lost his magic? First, to address the show this post originally pointed to, Wizards of Waverly Place doesn't copy anything so old as Bewitched but is probably modeled off of the Sabrina the Teenage Witch (which was probably modeled of Bewitched) franchise. It's an update of the old for the current generation. I've seen it. It's not bad, just predictable. It's a kid's show. I also don't think it's trying to send any sort of message about hiding your differences. It's following standard convention: magical people hide their magic. Even without their magic, the kids on the show fit in fine with their peers (considering their archetypal personalities, of course). If this show is sending any message, it's more of the "magic is cool, and hey, wouldn't it be nice if I could have some?" As for Disney, has it lost it's magic? I mean, it's not as magical as it once was, but I'm also not 7 yrs old anymore. I still think it's plenty fun. The Broadway shows are still going strong (and, possibly, even that disaster of the Little Mermaid will get a few years' run). Plenty of folks are still visiting Disneyland and Disney World. It can still be called "the most magical place on earth" without most folks snickering - and really, I'd wager that many would even agree. Pixar is as strong as it is thanks to Disney. They produce the movies, yes, but remember that the stories are still coming from the Disney machine. (Realistically, Pixar is also part of that Disney machine.) Moreover, Pixar wasn't doing a whole lot big until Disney came along. It's all Disney, whether we call it Touchstone or Pixar or Miramax or whatever. I'll be perfectly honest in that I do watch the Disney Channel now, so yes, I'm watching garbage by, apparently, many folks' standards, but I think I understand the appeal to the current generation of kids (or at least the demographics that Disney is going for with the channel). It's a matter of relatability and wishing. Kim Possible: a girl who can do everything but still has to do her homework and listen to her parents. Wizards of Waverly Place: folks who have magical skills but still has to the mundane of daily life. As far as I can tell, Nickelodeon is going for the same type of thing. Every once in a while, there's a hit (Avatar), but it's mostly just bad. But then, I seem unable to understand the appeal of Spongebob Squarepants, and that's just the biggest hit amongst kids *and* many people my age, so maybe I'm speaking out of turn in this case. Anyway, that's *my* rant on this subject. ~Ali ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 00:30:06 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:30:06 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERISH (not very but ISH) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Alla: Hope that will work Zara: Also like Snape, he is the antagonist of a mostly likable character. (Not of the main character, though - the main character is a third party). Alla: And isn't it funny that as Zara knows that after I read the book my sympathies were so fully on Urte's side that I hated that mostly likable character? ;) Zara: The business of the dead musicians *is* a reflection, in part, of a real difference between his character and Snape's, in my opinion, which Alla may or may not share. Snape of DH would not in my view have reacted with deadly violence in response to a comparable provocation. But it also partly reflects the difference in time, place, and status of the characters. Urte is a feudal magnate in a medieval world, nearly the equal of his sovereign. His society does not view him as a murderer for his action. Nor would his society consider a duel to the death, a bad way to settle a personal matter. Alla: I do share everything you wrote in this paragraph about Urte ;). I just wanted to add that for some reason I thought that this business of killing musicians was sort of murky and unclear to me, but of course even if this is exactly what happened society will not think him a murderer. And you know what I meant about appearances being deceiving of killing people Alla: > Guy Gavriel Kay " A Song for Arbonne" zgirnius: How to describe Kay? We really ought not to say more on the subject of Urte. Alla: Oh, but I want to. Whines. Wonderful description. Zara: Anyway, I would heartily second the recommendation (obviously, since > I'm the one who got Alla hooked). > Alla: In your debt dearest From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 01:00:21 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:00:21 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERISH (not very but ISH) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH > Alla: > > And isn't it funny that as Zara knows that after I read the book my > sympathies were so fully on Urte's side that I hated that mostly > likable character? ;) Zara: Yes, it is. Very. > Alla: > I do share everything you wrote in this paragraph about Urte ;). I > just > wanted to add that for some reason I thought that this business of > killing musicians was sort of murky and unclear to me, but of course > even if this is exactly what happened society will not think him a > murderer. zgirnius: Yes, it is not clear whether/how it happened. Did he do it, or not? Did his men do it, with or without his orders? Or did the rumor start somehow? It's one of those many accounts of Urte we hear, one he never bothers to deny (but he might not even if it was false), on which we are given no details. But I do not consider it outside the realm of possibility that it happened in some form. I'd liken the passing mention of this story in "Arbonne", to comments on Snape's alleged long-time obsession with the Dark Arts, or maybe the question of whether he ever killed anyone other than Dumbledore. We are invited to believe he did, it adds to his dark aura, but we are given no solid facts to prove or disprove it. > Alla: > > Oh, but I want to. Whines. > > Wonderful description. Zara: Well, we could, but then we should really change our thread title to "MAJOR SPOILERS, etc." Now I have someone to discuss with...thanks for reading it! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 01:31:55 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:31:55 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERISH (not very but ISH) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS > > PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP > > > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO > > > IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII > > LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL > > EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE > > IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII > > SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS > > HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH > > > Alla: > > > > And isn't it funny that as Zara knows that after I read the book my > > sympathies were so fully on Urte's side that I hated that mostly > > likable character? ;) > > Zara: > Yes, it is. Very. Alla: I keep telling people that my erm vehement dislike of Snape's character is really really strange to me and over the years I seem to work out why I dislike him and love his type, but it is still funny, since usually this type of character captures my heart very fast. And even with Snape, it started well, differently as I mentioned :). > zgirnius: > Yes, it is not clear whether/how it happened. Did he do it, or not? > Did his men do it, with or without his orders? Or did the rumor start > somehow? It's one of those many accounts of Urte we hear, one he > never bothers to deny (but he might not even if it was false), on > which we are given no details. But I do not consider it outside the > realm of possibility that it happened in some form. I'd liken the > passing mention of this story in "Arbonne", to comments on Snape's > alleged long-time obsession with the Dark Arts, or maybe the question > of whether he ever killed anyone other than Dumbledore. We are > invited to believe he did, it adds to his dark aura, but we are given > no solid facts to prove or disprove it. Alla: Oh sure sure absolutely, it could have happened and under standards of society would not be a murder of anything, just saying that yes to me it was ambiguous and yeah, another Snape like analogy hehe. > > Alla: > > > > Oh, but I want to. Whines. > > > > Wonderful description. > > Zara: > Well, we could, but then we should really change our thread title > to "MAJOR SPOILERS, etc." > > Now I have someone to discuss with...thanks for reading it! > Alla: Heee, just say and I will change it to major spoilers. As to thanks for reading, aren't you tired of me bubbling about it dearest? From sherriola at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 03:43:23 2008 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 20:43:23 -0700 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of the sort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006f01c899f3$dc72e8c0$ec647e4c@your27e1513d96> Alla: It is definitely stand alone, it is fantasy, but historical fantasy, countries are based on very well researched cultures of medieval France, etc. You may like it yes. Sherry: Yes, give it a try. I love this book too. In fact, I love everything Kay writes. Particularly Tigana, which is in my top ten favorite books of all time. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 12:42:13 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:42:13 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of the sort In-Reply-To: <006f01c899f3$dc72e8c0$ec647e4c@your27e1513d96> Message-ID: > Sherry: > > Yes, give it a try. I love this book too. In fact, I love everything Kay > writes. Particularly Tigana, which is in my top ten favorite books of all > time. Alla: That's right. Sherry was the one who introduced me to the first book that I read written by Kay and it was Tigana, I read it couple years ago. I loved it and then I read Fionavar Trilogy and loved it too. But then I stopped looking for Kay's books out of fear to experience of what I call Lackey's syndrom. You know, when you like first few books by the writer and then writer starts writing more, and more and more and more and MORE. Sorry, I do not believe that writer who publishes three four books a year is worthy of reading anymore and yes, I read plenty of books by Lackey before decide for myself that all that she cares now is how to make a quick buck. HATE what her books degenerated into, HATE. Anyways, back to Kay I am soooo grateful to Zara who told me that I should not worry about this with Kay. After all contrary to Lackey he only wrote what? Eight books so far? He is wonderful :) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 19:02:19 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:02:19 -0000 Subject: rewriting DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Sharon wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Some time ago on the main list, someone expressed a challenge for > > people who were unhappy with DH to rewrite some bits of it to > > their wishes. I think it might have been Geoff B? or was it > > Mike.. > > Geoff responded: > Not me guv. Mike seconds: Neither myself. IIRC it was Steve/bboyminn's idea. I did like the idea, though. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 21:41:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:41:13 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol, hoping that Alla will post a bit more about this book without giving anything away. > > Alla: > > Ugh, SO HARD. Ask me questions and I will happily answer. Carol responds: Asking questions without having read the book is hard, too, but I'll try! Does the book involve any real historical events and people, or is it entirely fictional? Who are the other two characters in the scene? (Blaise seems to the the point-of-view character, so I'm guessing that he's the protagonist as well.) Do any of the characters perform magic, and, if so, are they wizards like Merlin in the Mary Stewart books (obviously based on Arthurian legend) or something different? Carol, not knowing what else to ask From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 21:49:54 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:49:54 -0000 Subject: Has Disney lost its magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ali wrote: But then, I seem unable to understand the appeal of Spongebob Squarepants, and that's just the biggest hit amongst kids *and* many people my age, so maybe I'm speaking out of turn in this case. carol responds: Really, what *is* the appeal of Spongebob Squarepants? I didn't realize that is was still being shown, but I remember watching it out of curiosity a few years ago, and it was the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Well, not quite as stupid as Barney the Dinosaur or Teletubbies, but close. Carol, who remembers some equally stupid stuff from a long time ago ("Romper Room," "Captain Kangaroo," "Howdy Doody") and realizes that bad children's programming is nothing new From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 23:15:00 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:15:00 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > Does the book involve any real historical events and people, or is it > entirely fictional? zgirnius: Entirely fictional. Arbonne is one of several fictional countries in a fictional world. They share a fictional religion about which they have fictional doctrinal differences, a fictional ancient history to which occasional reference is made, etc. > Carol> > Who are the other two characters in the scene? (Blaise seems to the > the point-of-view character, so I'm guessing that he's the protagonist > as well.) zgirnius: Blaise is the protagonist, yes. Bertran is the guy whose antagonist Urte is, and he is an important character in the book too. > Carol: > Do any of the characters perform magic, and, if so, are they wizards > like Merlin in the Mary Stewart books (obviously based on Arthurian > legend) or something different? zgirnius: In this book, the people who do something closest to 'magic' are members of the clergy. No wands, staffs, or incantations - the sorts of things they can do is to seem mysteriously powerful and knowledgeable when in their own holy places, to see through the eyes of owls who are sort of like their familiars, to foretell the future (dimly), and to heal. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 10 03:32:39 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:32:39 -0000 Subject: Has Disney lost its magic? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > carol responds: > > Really, what *is* the appeal of Spongebob Squarepants? Potioncat: There is one episode that will send my husband into peals of laughter. We'll watch that one brief part of one episode just for that. (Sponge Bob draws a circle by first drawing a complicated picture and erasing he extra parts....OK, you had to be there.) But I've always disliked the show just for its noise level. My youngest has now forbidden Sponge-Bob to the whole family because of an episode in which Sponge-Bob pretends to be mentally challenged and wears a helmet. My son finally caught on that it was demeaning to Austic children, and as my son has Autism, he was furious. So no Sponge-Bob for us. Thank goodness, we're also past Billy and Mandy---evem noisier than Sponge-Bob. Carol: > Carol, who remembers some equally stupid stuff from a long time ago > ("Romper Room," "Captain Kangaroo," "Howdy Doody") and realizes that > bad children's programming is nothing new Potioncat: I always liked Barney and Captain Kangaroo, but never Romper Room with it's Do-Bees and Don't-Bees or the Teletubies. > From specialcritters at hotmail.com Thu Apr 10 16:26:53 2008 From: specialcritters at hotmail.com (Lee Truslow) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:26:53 -0400 Subject: Beedle the Bard contest Message-ID: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_6577562_2?ie=UTF8&docId=1000207461&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=right-1&pf_rd_r=1CKFSETJTW9YAZ37K8ZD&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=383429901&pf_rd_i=507846 _________________________________________________________________ More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_instantaccess_042008 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 12 00:05:12 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:05:12 -0000 Subject: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: zgirnius: > Hee. The comment about music was almost certainly sarcasm, another trait in common with Snape. Though I guess/interpret here, because the way this character is written shares something with the way Snape is written. We hear a lot about him, we see him in scenes in which the narrator shares the POV of other characters, but never his. (I am indebted to my HP addiction and posters here, notably you, Carol, for my ability to make this observation. I'd never thought in these terms before coming here). Carol: Thanks, Zara. It's the English teacher in me coming out (just like Snape giving Potions-related detentions and staying in his old office when he's the DADA teacher rather than the Potions master). zgirnius: > How to describe Kay? We really ought not to say more on the subject of Urte. Kay gets shelved with fantasy, but his books usually do not> include a lot of showy magic. And his books have a flavor of being historical fiction, even though they are set in a fictional world. The details about the roles of noblemen and how they pass the time, and dress, and eat, and fight, and entertain one another, have the feeling of being well-researched rather than made up on the fly, and jive well with historical fiction I have read. Carol: Erm, unlike JKR, who thinks that a knight (or baronet or whatever Sir Nicholas is intended to be) who died in 1492 would wear an Elizabethan ruff and a Jacobean plumed hat (think "Three Musketeers" for the era, but not the country)? Sorry, but clearly dates are "maths" as far as our dear JKR is concerned. zgirnius: > Kay was Christopher Tolkien's assistant in editing "The Silmarillion". Carol: Really? Impressive. > zgirnius: > Anyway, I would heartily second the recommendation (obviously, since I'm the one who got Alla hooked). Carol: Well, I'm looking for something new to read, not so much for a Snapelike character (I think he's sui generis) as for a book that will sustain my interest and draw me in as the HP books have done. Carol, avoiding the rest of this thread until some kind person informs me that it's "safe" (I really don't like spoilers!) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Apr 12 23:19:43 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:19:43 -0000 Subject: safe to read post Re: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > Well, I'm looking for something new to read, not so much for a > Snapelike character (I think he's sui generis) as for a book that will > sustain my interest and draw me in as the HP books have done. > > Carol, avoiding the rest of this thread until some kind person informs > me that it's "safe" (I really don't like spoilers!) > Potioncat: I just started it this weekend. Sort of like SS/PS, it did not grab me. To be honest, had I had other books available, or more distractions, I might have put it down. But, I was stuck in a motel, between college tours and only brought the one book. Now, I'm hooked. Can't wait to keep reading! Not only is Snape in this, so is Voldemort and I think Narcissa. (Not sure yet.) Kay hasn't worked with Jaspar Fford before has he? Potioncat, who will quickly point out, that I am not a famous rock star between college tours, rather, the mother of a high school senior looking at colleges for the fall. (She decided on WVU!!) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Apr 12 23:55:57 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:55:57 -0000 Subject: Celeb Gossip: Dan Earns US$6Million Message-ID: Seem like I'm always the one reporting stuff like this, but if you have check the news services lately then you know that Dan's company 'Gilmore Jacobs' has released its annual report. Apparently Dan earned US$6,000,000 NOT COUNTING the additional US$16mil he received for 'Order of the Phoenix'. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article1032384.ece US$130,000 of that came from Dan's production company Almada Productions which develops scripts. Apparently, his current assets are worth approx. US$50mil. I say great going Dan, and congratulations to his parents for protecting his assets and not squandering them the way so many 'stage' parents do. It was his parents idea to set up the Limited Liability Company Gilmore Jacobs Ltd. Since, it is a publicly listed company (though privately held), they have to file an annual report, and this insures that Dan's parents are not squandering his money in half baked investment schemes. In a sense, there is a public accountability that is severely lacking in the finances of so many child stars. Also, I think this protects Dan personally. Likely, Dans (and his parents) are paid a salary by Gilmore Jacobs, so if he gets sued, or if he gets divorced, the assets of the company are not on the line, only his personal assets which are represented by the salary he is paid. I'm pretty sure both apartments Dan purchased in New York were actually purchased by Gilmore Jacobs. Still, I find it comforting that Dan is handling his money very responsibly, and looks like even if his acting career goes south, the can still remain in the business in production and script development. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 13 03:17:11 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:17:11 -0000 Subject: safe to read post Re: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > I just started it this weekend. Sort of like SS/PS, it did not grab me. > To be honest, had I had other books available, or more distractions, I > might have put it down. But, I was stuck in a motel, between college > tours and only brought the one book. Now, I'm hooked. Can't wait to > keep reading! Alla: YAAAAAY. Potioncat: > Not only is Snape in this, so is Voldemort and I think Narcissa. (Not > sure yet.) Kay hasn't worked with Jaspar Fford before has he? Alla: Heeeee, I have no clue whether he worked with Fford or not, but I can tell you that he wrote his book before Harry Potter appeared, I am pretty sure. I think early 90s. But I mean we all know that some characters share similarity of types so to speak and yes, I do not share Carol's view that Snape's character is sui generis at all. Have read and seen at least several of his character type. Of course there are differences, but I have no problem classifying those characters as Snape like at all. Now, interesting thought about Narcissa, I know whom you are thinking about, very interesting. Hmmmmm. I thought of her as other famous character, but to avoid even remote spoilerishness, I will tell you offlist. > Potioncat, who will quickly point out, that I am not a famous rock star > between college tours, rather, the mother of a high school senior > looking at colleges for the fall. > > (She decided on WVU!!) > Alla: Heeee, so no more tours for you? YAY. From s_ings at yahoo.com Sun Apr 13 12:53:03 2008 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:53:03 -0000 Subject: Convention Alley 2008 Registration Update Message-ID: Convention Alley 2008 is pleased to announce that we've done away with a registration increase. Everyone attending the event will pay the same rate of $300.00 (Canadian) for their registration. How did we manage this, you ask? Will there be a decrease in quality of what's offered to you? Not at all! We've simply done some basic rearranging - changed some programming rooms, found unexpected resources to cut our costs. We're just passing it on to you. Registration for Convention Alley 2008 includes all formal programming, keynote events and most of your meals, so register now for a weekend of all things Harry Potter. Come out and discuss the topics that have kept us going over the years, meet up with some old friends or make some new ones. Look forward to seeing you there! Sheryll Townsend Chair, CA 2008 Planning Committee From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 13 15:44:22 2008 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 13 Apr 2008 15:44:22 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/13/2008, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1208101462.10.38248.m52@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 13, 2008 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 13 17:42:36 2008 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 13 Apr 2008 17:42:36 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/13/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1208108556.10.97732.m41@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 13, 2008 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 13 22:22:19 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:22:19 -0000 Subject: Beedle the Bard contest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Truslow wrote: > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_6577562_2?ie=UTF8&docId=1000207461&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=right-1&pf_rd_r=1CKFSETJTW9YAZ37K8ZD&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=383429901&pf_rd_i=507846 Thank you, Lee. I looked at it and am confused. It's called 'Beedle the Bard Ballad Writing Contest' but I didn't see anything in the description saying that submissions should be in verse. If they can be prose, I could enter, but what kind of a ballad is in prose? From n2fgc at arrl.net Sun Apr 13 22:26:32 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:26:32 -0400 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve Message-ID: <000301c89db5$6d7eff60$67a4a8c0@FRODO> I just saw a thing on WABC about JKR and Steve to be in Federal Court in Manhattan tomorrow. Uh--I don't understand the whole thing, but I'm sure routing for Steve. Best of luck! Lee Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 14 00:29:38 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:29:38 -0000 Subject: Dictators (on main list) Message-ID: Steve bboyminn wrote in : << In hindsight, looking at Voldemort, Hitler, or any other ruthless dictator, we surely ask how and why did this happen. What the man was saying and doing was so hopelessly illogical and irrational, and yet, that charismatic man was able to accomplish the most despicable things. Things that in hindsight make no sense at all. >> Remember that terrible, terrible civil war in Sierra Leone, where the rebels were cutting off everyone's hands and feet? They would invade villages and force the children to kill their parents and then take the children as slaves and make them be child soldiers? The leader of the rebels was Foday Sankoh, and every sound bite I ever heard from him was lunacy, and media reports of his back story were that he had been some kind of official who was denied a promotion, so he decided to conquer the country in order to give himself an even higher promotion. And it seemed obvious to me that if one actually wanted to conquer a country in order to rule it, one would not wish to wreck that country's resources (such as its labor force!) because ruling a wrecked country would be unrewarding. I kept asking "why would anyone follow this idiot? He doesn't tell them it's a class struggle or an ethnic struggle. he doesn't tell them that this is a holy war commanded by God. He doesn't even tell them they'll get rich from loot. I understand about the child soldiers; they really will be killed if they get caught disobeying or trying to escape, and if they do escape, they have no home or parents to return to, and they expect to be punished as murderers. But how did he recruit his original band of followers with which he started to invade villages and enslave children?" I eventually found out, and it WASN'T charisma. It was Charles Taylor, the Liberian in the US on a student visa who was convicted of burglary, escaped prison, returned to Liberia, and assassinated the previous dictator and eventually became dictator himself, after a very destructive civil war between several men who all wanted to be dictator themselves. It was eventually reported that the plan he made while in US prison was not simply to become dictator for the sake of that glorious title, but to use the position to get rich off diamonds illegally excavated in neighboring countries, which he would export from Liberia despite Liberia not having diamond mines. He gave Foday Sankoh some money to hire mercenaries to start his rebellion, and conquer some diamond mines to pay him back in diamonds. Charisma not needed, just paychecks. Personally, I think Charles Taylor is Satan. So very, very, very much damage done by one man who wasn't even a politican or a general or a CEO or an orator, just a greedy street thug... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 01:34:17 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:34:17 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: <000301c89db5$6d7eff60$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > I just saw a thing on WABC about JKR and Steve to be in Federal Court in > Manhattan tomorrow. Uh--I don't understand the whole thing, but I'm sure > routing for Steve. > > Best of luck! > > Lee > Alla: Not from me, sorry. From lwilliams15209 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 01:37:45 2008 From: lwilliams15209 at yahoo.com (lwilliams15209) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:37:45 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing > Force)" n2fgc@ wrote: > > > > I just saw a thing on WABC about JKR and Steve to be in Federal Court > in > > Manhattan tomorrow. Uh--I don't understand the whole thing, but I'm > sure > > routing for Steve. > > > > Best of luck! > > > > Lee > > > > Alla: > > Not from me, sorry. Routing for Lexicon Steve all the way. He's in my prayers. Linda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 14 02:02:06 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:02:06 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: <000301c89db5$6d7eff60$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: "Lee Storm: > > I just saw a thing on WABC about JKR and Steve to be in Federal Court in > Manhattan tomorrow. Uh--I don't understand the whole thing, but I'm sure > routing for Steve. > > Best of luck! Potioncat: I haven't read a lot about this situation, and haven't really understood the legal issue involved. I know I'd love to have a print version of the Lexicon as well as JKR's encyclopedia. I can't understand why other books about the series are all OK, but this one wouldn't be. At any rate, here's prayers or wishes for a wise judgement with whatever is right and fair to be done. (But I'm pulling for Steve as well.) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 02:16:39 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:16:39 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > I haven't read a lot about this situation, and haven't really > understood the legal issue involved. I know I'd love to have a print > version of the Lexicon as well as JKR's encyclopedia. I can't > understand why other books about the series are all OK, but this one > wouldn't be. Alla: Because many other books contain enough INTERPRETATION of the Potterverse, etc, from what I read about the case, Steve's book does not. I do not believe his book even contains essays which were published on Lexicon, which could easily fall under fair use. > At any rate, here's prayers or wishes for a wise judgement with > whatever is right and fair to be done. (But I'm pulling for Steve as > well.) > Alla: To each their own, me - not only I hope that he will loose, I hope that he will loose spectacularly. Oh, and before I receive that argument, no I do not think that every lawsuit that JKR and WB bring is Okay, even if it is legally right. That lawsuit that was seeking to stop the charity in India from having Hogwarts castle I thought was just plain wrong, even if legally correct. WB could not let the castle stand for limited amount of days? For shame indeed as far as I am concerned. Here, from everything I read and I read a lot about this case, I formed a very strong opinion that this book is a violation of copyright law, and I do believe that it is morally wrong as well. Can I be wrong? Sure I can, but that's my opinion. And I am usually the most amused by the arguments ( not yours dear of course) that this is big copporation suing little guy, so little guy should win. As if little guy cannot be wrong. Oh well. I do know what I hope judge will rule. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 02:26:03 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:26:03 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Potioncat: > > I haven't read a lot about this situation, and haven't really > > understood the legal issue involved. I know I'd love to have a > print > > version of the Lexicon as well as JKR's encyclopedia. I can't > > understand why other books about the series are all OK, but this > one > > wouldn't be. > > Alla: > > Because many other books contain enough INTERPRETATION of the > Potterverse, etc, from what I read about the case, Steve's book does > not. I do not believe his book even contains essays which were > published on Lexicon, which could easily fall under fair use. Kemper now: I agree with Alla. Though, I do hope that Steve is able to learn from this situation. Blessings upon him. Kemper From lwilliams15209 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 02:26:38 2008 From: lwilliams15209 at yahoo.com (lwilliams15209) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:26:38 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Because many other books contain enough INTERPRETATION of the > Potterverse, etc, from what I read about the case, Steve's book does > not. I do not believe his book even contains essays which were > published on Lexicon, which could easily fall under fair use. > > > > At any rate, here's prayers or wishes for a wise judgement with > > whatever is right and fair to be done. (But I'm pulling for Steve > as > > well.) > > > > > Alla: > > > To each their own, me - not only I hope that he will loose, I hope > that he will loose spectacularly. I hope JKR *loses* spectacularly. Yes, that sums it up nicely. > > Oh, and before I receive that argument, no I do not think that every > lawsuit that JKR and WB bring is Okay, even if it is legally right. > > That lawsuit that was seeking to stop the charity in India from > having Hogwarts castle I thought was just plain wrong, even if > legally correct. WB could not let the castle stand for limited amount > of days? For shame indeed as far as I am concerned. But the law is the law, unless you base legal decisions on your own personal opinion. I've found the Lexicon to be far more helpful than anything JKR has ever said. > > Here, from everything I read and I read a lot about this case, I > formed a very strong opinion that this book is a violation of > copyright law, and I do believe that it is morally wrong as well. And interestingly, I've formed a strong opinion that it is not a violation of anything and JKR needs to back off and move on like she always said she wants to do, just never gets around to actually doing. > > Can I be wrong? Sure I can, but that's my opinion. I've already decided to never read anything else JKR ever writes, but that's just my opinion. > > And I am usually the most amused by the arguments ( not yours dear of > course) that this is big copporation suing little guy, so little guy > should win. Yes, if a big corporation goes after the little guy, the little guy is usually right...just like with the Harry Potter castle. Honestly, where exactly is the difference that allows you to judge the two so differently. You've already stated it isn't the law, so what is it? > > As if little guy cannot be wrong. Yes, they can be, but why would the big corporation spend mega money to prove it? Ignoring it would be the high road. > > Oh well. I do know what I hope judge will rule. As do we who support Steve. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 02:43:13 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:43:13 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lwilliams: Yes, if a big corporation goes after the little guy, the little guy is usually right...just like with the Harry Potter castle. Honestly, where exactly is the difference that allows you to judge the two so differently. You've already stated it isn't the law, so what is it? Alla: No, I did not say that the difference isn't the law. I said that I believe that WB and JKR should have backed off that lawsuit even though I think that one was legally right too. The castle would not have been a money maker the way this book would be for Steve, therefore I think that even though the action was not frivolous, it is just bad public relationships to go after charity which puts up a castle for the time of festival. But putting what is basically JKR's creation and not even interpreting it in the book and making money on it ? big difference to me. And moreover saying that since JKR allowed the website to exist, the book is okay as well? The website is FREE, the book is not, I am amazed that this argument is even brought up. Therefore yes, I believe that this little guy is very wrong in this situation. If Steve wins and many other authors will decide that they should exercise much stricter control over their creations, well I would totally understand that. And yes, it makes a huge difference if author is not happy with people writing fanfiction for example in his universe. Of course he cannot take every fan to court or forbid everything, but I think that a lot of people will not write fanfiction simply out of respect for the writer. I brought example of Guy Gavriel Kay at some point. He states clearly on his website that he cannot approve of fanfiction writing because of potential copyright problems. Do you know how many stories I found about his books? Something like TEN. Compare this with thousands of stories about HP on fanfiction.net only. I think the fact that JKR approves of fanfiction makes a huge difference in how many people are willing to do it, if nothing else. Maybe I will be able to find few other stories in his universes on another site somewhere, but I think the quantative difference is huge. From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 03:19:23 2008 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] re: Dictators (on main list) and Pervs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <404572.53650.qm@web53001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hello! Warren Jeffs and his cult of perverts. Marry the girls as soon as they hit puberty, run the young men of the same age out. A geezer pedophile festival. I live in West Texas, and have been wondering when something would be done about this damn place. I bet Mitt Romney is SO glad that he isn't in the presidential race anymore, considering that the compound is a freaky offshoot (as are most fanatical sects of ANY religion that get news coverage) of the LDS church. Satan, or just plain Badness, has many faces. Megalomaniacal sociopaths. Alex Hogan "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: Steve bboyminn wrote in : << In hindsight, looking at Voldemort, Hitler, or any other ruthless dictator, we surely ask how and why did this happen. What the man was saying and doing was so hopelessly illogical and irrational, and yet, that charismatic man was able to accomplish the most despicable things. Things that in hindsight make no sense at all. >> Remember that terrible, terrible civil war in Sierra Leone, where the rebels were cutting off everyone's hands and feet? They would invade villages and force the children to kill their parents and then take the children as slaves and make them be child soldiers? The leader of the rebels was Foday Sankoh, and every sound bite I ever heard from him was lunacy, and media reports of his back story were that he had been some kind of official who was denied a promotion, so he decided to conquer the country in order to give himself an even higher promotion. And it seemed obvious to me that if one actually wanted to conquer a country in order to rule it, one would not wish to wreck that country's resources (such as its labor force!) because ruling a wrecked country would be unrewarding. I kept asking "why would anyone follow this idiot? He doesn't tell them it's a class struggle or an ethnic struggle. he doesn't tell them that this is a holy war commanded by God. He doesn't even tell them they'll get rich from loot. I understand about the child soldiers; they really will be killed if they get caught disobeying or trying to escape, and if they do escape, they have no home or parents to return to, and they expect to be punished as murderers. But how did he recruit his original band of followers with which he started to invade villages and enslave children?" I eventually found out, and it WASN'T charisma. It was Charles Taylor, the Liberian in the US on a student visa who was convicted of burglary, escaped prison, returned to Liberia, and assassinated the previous dictator and eventually became dictator himself, after a very destructive civil war between several men who all wanted to be dictator themselves. It was eventually reported that the plan he made while in US prison was not simply to become dictator for the sake of that glorious title, but to use the position to get rich off diamonds illegally excavated in neighboring countries, which he would export from Liberia despite Liberia not having diamond mines. He gave Foday Sankoh some money to hire mercenaries to start his rebellion, and conquer some diamond mines to pay him back in diamonds. Charisma not needed, just paychecks. Personally, I think Charles Taylor is Satan. So very, very, very much damage done by one man who wasn't even a politican or a general or a CEO or an orator, just a greedy street thug... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From retired153 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 06:57:49 2008 From: retired153 at yahoo.com (j15300) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:57:49 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter analogs--book notes Message-ID: A humorous book with more than a few Harry Potter similarities was published last year (2007): "Alcatraz versus the Evil Librarians," by Brandon Sanderson. Worthwhile. A book which some reviewers have called "Harry Potter for adults" is "Destiny Matrix," by Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. And, five books that are particularly Harry Potter-like: "The Masters and Their Retreats," Mark Prophet; "Watch Your Dreams," Ann Ree Colton; "The Master of Lucid Dreams," Dr. Olga Kharitidi; "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?", Free and Wilcock, http://www.divinecosmos.com and "Psychoenergetic Science," Dr. William A. Tiller, http://www.tiller.org From kempermentor at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 14:46:14 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:46:14 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter analogs--book notes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > j15300: > A humorous book with more than a few Harry Potter similarities was > published last year (2007): "Alcatraz versus the Evil Librarians," > by Brandon Sanderson. Worthwhile. Kemper now: After some google searches, this sounds interesting. But then I'm given pause to invest in reading it after google searches of the following recommendations: > A book which some reviewers have called "Harry Potter for adults" is > "Destiny Matrix," by Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. > > And, five books that are particularly Harry Potter-like: > > "The Masters and Their Retreats," Mark Prophet; > "Watch Your Dreams," Ann Ree Colton; > "The Master of Lucid Dreams," Dr. Olga Kharitidi; > "The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?", Free and Wilcock, > http://www.divinecosmos.com and > "Psychoenergetic Science," Dr. William A. Tiller, http://www.tiller.org Kemper now: How are these New Age books Potter-like? Kemper From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 15:00:39 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:00:39 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > I know I'd love to have a print > version of the Lexicon as well as JKR's encyclopedia. I can't > understand why other books about the series are all OK, but this one > wouldn't be. zgirnius: My point of view exactly! The Web Lexicon is a great resource, and a print book with similar organization and usability would be a fine addition to my bookshelf. So would a future Rowling encyclopedia, *especially* if she writes it as she has hinted she will, with additional background information and information about discarded ideas from her notes. I don't even see how Van der Ark's book could be seen as competing with such a book. Which is no guarantee the law sees it my way. Here's hoping for a fair legal process and graceful acceptance of it by all parties. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 15:31:40 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:31:40 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: <000301c89db5$6d7eff60$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > I just saw a thing on WABC about JKR and Steve to be in > Federal Court in Manhattan tomorrow. Uh--I don't understand > the whole thing, but I'm sure routing for Steve. > > Best of luck! > > Lee bboyminn: I'm very conflicted on this issue. On one hand, I wonder if this has nothing to do with JKR, but is Warner Bros. asserting their right to Harry Potter. As to the assertion that the corporation is automatically right, keep in mind, even when they know they are wrong, a corporation can force its belief into the market by burying a defendant in money and lawyers. Most people, even most smaller corporations simply don't have the financial resources to sustain the outrageous cash flow required to fight a big corporation. A big corporation can prevent what they want to prevent by tying the defendant up in court for years, until such time as the book (or whatever) becomes irrelevant or the defendant simply runs out of money and other resources. You don't need to be right, and you don't even need to win, if you have enough money to sustain the fight indefinitely. As to whether the Lexicon 'copies' JKR's work, let's look as some examples. --- Encyclopedia of Spells ---- http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/spells/spells_a.html Accio (AK-ee-oh or A-see-oh) "Summoning Charm" "accio" L. send for, summon Accio Causes an object to fly to the caster, even over quite some distance; the target object is said to have been Summoned. It would seem that the caster must know at least the general location of the object Summoned. * Mrs. Weasley used a series of Summoning Charms to find the magical items Fred and George were trying to sneak out of the house at the time of the Quidditch World Cup (GF6). * Harry learned the Summoning Charm for the first task, when he Summoned his Firebolt to him so he could fly around and past the Hungarian Horntail (GF20). * The fake Moody used a Summoning Charm to grab the Marauder's Map off the stairs on the night Harry solved the golden egg clue (GF25). * Harry used this charm to call the Triwizard Cup to him while escaping Voldemort and the Death Eaters (GF34). * Accio Brain! by Mary GrandPr? Used several times during the Battle of the Department of Mysteries by both sides. The most notable instances were by Death Eaters attempting to pull the prophecy sphere from Harry's hands, by Hermione to pick up wands after a Disarming Spell hit, and most memorably by Ron in the Brain Room after he'd been knocked silly (OP35). * Harry attempted to cast this nonverbally to Summon his wand into his hand after Draco Malfoy had hit him with a Full-Body Bind, but Harry couldn't make the spell work at the time (HBP8). Harry had a similar problem when his wand was knocked out of his hand during his fight with Nagini at Godric's Hollow (DH17). * Harry used this to Summon Rosmerta's brooms so that he and Albus Dumbledore could return quickly to the castle on the night of the Battle of the Tower (HBP27). * Harry cast this on Hagrid (DH4). * Hermione used this to steal the Horcrux books - library books that he had taken out of circulation - from Dumbledore's study (DH6). * Harry used this to Summon his glasses (DH7). * Fred Summoned hairs from a Muggle boy in Ottery St. Catchpole in order to help Harry disguise himself using Polyjuice Potion (DH8). * Hermione used this to try to Summon the locket Horcrux in Regulus' room (DH10). Harry similarly attempted to Summon it in Umbridge's office at the Ministry (DH13). * An object can be placed under counter-enchantments to prevent it being summoned magically. The stone basin in the Horcrux cave and Hufflepuff's cup in Gringotts had both been placed under such counter-enchantments (DH10, (DH26). * NOTE: The pronunciation of this spell has been debated by fans. The "official" pronunciation from Scholastic is "A-see-oh." This is the pronunciation used in the audio version of the books. The word is Latin, however, and in Latin the letter C is always pronounced 'hard,' the same as the letter K. Some languages which are descended from Latin, such as Italian, pronounce 'cc' as 'ch,' but this is almost certainly not correct. --- end quote --- I see nothing in there that is a direct rip-off of JKR. The Lexicon defines a spell in a way that is implied by never truly explained in the books. It gives a definition, reference to where it can be found in the books, and how it is used, but never is it presented in a format that is found in the books. It is conversation, discussional, and analytical, as it should be for a work like this. Here's another- ---- WHICH WIZARD - Who's Who in the Wizarding World ---- - - The Black Family - - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamily.html Sirius Black (1845-1853?) Older sibling of Phineas Nigellus, Elladora, and Isla. Died when he was around 8 years old. Possible name derivation: Sirius=seirios (Greek) meaning "burning;" Sirius=the "Dog Star," the brightest one in the Canis Major ("Great Dog") constellation. Phineas Nigellus Black by Lisa M. Rourke. Phineas Nigellus Black (1847-1925) Parentage not given (BFT). Three siblings: Sirius, Elladora, and Isla (BFT). Hogwarts: Slytherin (first year 1858 or 1859); later Hogwarts Headmaster. Married to Ursula Flint (BFT). Five children: Sirius (1877-1952) husband of Hesper Gamp, Phineas (disowned, dates unknown), Cygnus (1889-1943) husband of Violetta Bulstrode; Belvina (1886-1962); Arcturus (1884-1959) (BFT). Great-great-grandfather of Sirius Black, who has been known to refer to him as the least-popular Headmaster Hogwarts has ever had (OP6). - - - End Quote - - - This is a compilation of data from diverse sources. This seems fair use as many compilations of data similar to this have been legally created for other series of books such as 'Lord of the Rings'. This book it truly a Lexicon, a compilation of known data about a given fictional world, and I believe this is considered fair use and valid literary inquiry. Now, I haven't actually seen the books itself, so there may be things different form the on-line Lexicon. I'm sure however the judge in the matter rules, it will be fair, but I think if very unfair that this suit was brought against Steve V and his small publishing company when they have so little means to defend themselves. I believe a law school professor and a team of his students have volunteered to work with Steve V. for free to help him defend what they belief is an unjust and unnecessary law suit. Again, many corporations sue simply because they know the defendant can never marshal the resources to defend himself, and even if he can, they can keep him tied up in court for so many years that his case and his book become irrelevant. Money is power; he who has the money has the power, and that's the way life is. I do see the Lexicon as an original work /based on/ another work that fall in the copyright guide lines that allow encyclopedias and other compilations of raw data, and I do think the Lexicon does contain enough original work. I think it is heart breaking that two people who up until this point has a very cordial relationship, are now at each other's throat using teams of lawyers as weapons. Very sad indeed. But as I said, to some extent, I think JKR is just along for the ride. She is bound by obligation to participate in a law suit brought and promoted by others with a vested interest in the Harry Potter franchise. Personally, I hope Steve V. wins, likely he does need the money, but JKR and Warner do not. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 15:39:35 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:39:35 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >bboyminn: > I believe a law school professor and a team of his students > have volunteered to work with Steve V. for free to help him > defend what they belief is an unjust and unnecessary law > suit. zgirnius: Yes, Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project is helping out with the case. Although the impression I get is that their interest in the case is its possibility to be a precedent-setting case in copyright law relating to the legal doctrine of "Fair Use", which they favor expanding/protecting. While I agree with your point about Lexicons (I own one or two for the Tolkien Universe myself!), it seems the law/precedent on this issue may not be very clear. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 15:41:35 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:41:35 -0000 Subject: safe to read post Re: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > I just started it this weekend. Sort of like SS/PS, it did not grab me. > To be honest, had I had other books available, or more distractions, I > might have put it down. But, I was stuck in a motel, between college > tours and only brought the one book. Now, I'm hooked. Can't wait to > keep reading! zgirnius: Oh, good! Maybe you can post your impressions when you are done...I think Alla and I would live to read them! From kempermentor at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 17:51:26 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:51:26 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >bboyminn: > > I believe a law school professor and a team of his students > > have volunteered to work with Steve V. for free to help him > > defend what they belief is an unjust and unnecessary law > > suit. > zgirnius: > Yes, Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project is helping out with the > case. Although the impression I get is that their interest in the case > is its possibility to be a precedent-setting case in copyright law > relating to the legal doctrine of "Fair Use", which they favor > expanding/protecting. > > While I agree with your point about Lexicons (I own one or two for the > Tolkien Universe myself!), it seems the law/precedent on this issue > may not be very clear. Kemper now: First to Steve's post: It's not about the money. There have been many books about Potter that haven't been ok'd by WB or JKR. What you've quoted from the lexicon is from the books or interviews, but Steve V doesn't /add/ critical/philosophical/spiritual/psychological/etc commentary to JKR's work. Yes, the Lexicon does have essays but the encyclopedia as I've understood it would be printed without those essays. JKR doesn't have a problem with the website. The problem lies in exploiting JKR's work for Steve V's benefit. Stanford could care less about unfair and unjust lawsuits. The opportunity to work with Fair Use as zgirnius said. The publicity of the case I'm sure is also a bonus. I feel if Steve V wins it could limit what fans of future writers might want to do (fanfic/art/movie/sites/etc) because then those writers will have to fight for control of their work which would hurt developing a fan base. (I wish I could better articulate this thought.) On to zgirnius: Did JRRT express a desire to write an encyclopedia about his work? What are the names of the encyclopedias you own? Kemper From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 14 17:56:28 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:56:28 -0000 Subject: safe to read post Re: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > zgirnius: > Oh, good! Maybe you can post your impressions when you are done...I > think Alla and I would live to read them! Potioncat: I don't know, my opinions will probably be "to die for." I'm really enjoying the book and would encourage others to read as well, maybe we can have our little group discussion. I'm at the point now where anything could be a spoiler--even the little I've read from posts has colored how I react to the story. So I'm off. From specialcritters at hotmail.com Mon Apr 14 18:25:45 2008 From: specialcritters at hotmail.com (Lee Truslow) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:25:45 -0400 Subject: Jo testifies In-Reply-To: References: <000301c89db5$6d7eff60$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/04/14/rowling.trial.ap/index.html _________________________________________________________________ More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_instantaccess_042008 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miketedting at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 18:44:03 2008 From: miketedting at yahoo.com (Mike Ting) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JK Rowling sues a fan, and other stories Message-ID: <333470.83590.qm@web31108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello friends. I'd like to invite you to read these short articles: 1. Harry Potter author sues Harry Potter fan . 2. Golden and Silver Screen Politics . 3. Man becomes pregnant . 4. Desaparecidos . 5. Behind the Culture of Silence . 6. Corruption and nepotism in The Philippines . Thank you very much. Regards, Mike Ting ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 14 20:21:15 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:21:15 -0000 Subject: Jo testifies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Truslow wrote: > > > http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/04/14/rowling.trial.ap/index.html Getting more dramatic: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-harrypotter- lawsuit.html?ex=1208836800&en=7d1d6a3225ecff1c&ei=5070&emc=eta1 -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 20:21:27 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:21:27 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kemper: > On to zgirnius: Did JRRT express a desire to write an encyclopedia > about his work? What are the names of the encyclopedias you own? zgirnius: The one I recall the title of is "A Tolkien Bestiary". Nice pictures. . They are at my parents'...I really ought to remember to repossess them... And I consider Rowling's intention to publish a reference work to her universe irrelevant to both the legal and ethical issues involved. Why? Because there is no one way, or even one best way, to write a reference work to the HP (or any other) series. Will Rowling's include references to where she originally published the material (see Steve/bboyminn's example entry - with it I could quickly find the references to Accio in the books, without having to go through each in turn). I doubt it, but I find that useful/interesting, it is one way I use the online Lexicon, and one way I would use an offline one - to find for myself the actual words of Rowling about the various entries.). Will hers be organized with separate sections on Wizards, Muggles, Potions, Spells, and what have you? Pure alphabetical order without regard to the nature of the entry? Separate sections based on other possible criteria? Will hers cover all of the same 'entries' as the Lexicon? Extremely unlikely - for the print Lexicon to be about 300 pages, some choices must have been made, on what to include and in what depth. Rowling will face the same issues, and is unlikely to make identical choices. Not to mention that what she actually puts in the entries will for similar reasons be different. And of course, her entries may include 'facts' not currently known to anyone but her and a small circle of assistants, which gives her a decisive advantage at whatever time she finally does come out with the book. In what style will hers be written? The online Lexicon is quite dry, very much in the style of an encyclopedia. It could, I suppose, have a witty/quaint/what-have-you introduction created expressly for the print version, but I doubt it, and if it does, that would only be an additional example of the originality of the work. The two companion books by Rowling (which I own) are arranged as an encyclopedia type book, and a history book, but have a good deal of personality, of their supposed writers, and marginal notes by their supposed users. I would think the Rowling Encyclopedia would share this charming trait, a reason I might buy it even if she decides not to put in new material, or material about her writing process (both of which I would definitely pay good money for). I don't get why the fact that one day, there will likely (but not certainly) be a book of this type by Rowling, means there can't be a distinct and different book (or books) of this type by someone else (others), now. She has every right to make sure that the marketing, covers, titles etc. of those books make clear they are in no way endorsed by or associated with her, but as far as I am concerned, that is where logically, her rights should end. (To clarify - I am not casting doubt on Rowling's stated plans to write an encyclopedia - but her own comments about what would be in such a guide, would lead me to consider it a different, and far more interesting, animal from the Lexicon entirely). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 21:35:49 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:35:49 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lee wrote: > > > I just saw a thing on WABC about JKR and Steve to be in Federal Court in Manhattan tomorrow. Uh--I don't understand the whole thing, but I'm sure routing for Steve. Linda replied: > Routing for Lexicon Steve all the way. He's in my prayers. Carol responds: Erm, ladies, I think you mean "rooting." As for me, I feel that it's all an unfortunate misunderstanding and I wish it had never happened. The money is all on JKR's side (the expert lawyers, I mean), and I rather expect that she'll win the case. I only hope that she's generous and forgiving, not asking Steve to pay some huge sum that will bankrupt him, especially considering the message of DH. And even if Steve's book were published, I can't see how it could cut into her profits. She's a billionaire, with money still coming in, and WB isn't hurting financially, either. I don't think that Lexicon Steve, who after all is her admirer and whose website all of us probably have found helpful on one occasion or another, *intended* any harm to her or any infringement of copyright. His mistake, I suppose, was resisting the cease and desist order. He should have asked what he could do to make the book acceptable to her. Nor do I think that his book, which is based on previously published books, could in any way compete with her planned encyclopedia, which is based on information he has no access to, either in her notes or in her head. Carol, not as well informed as she should be on the topic because she can't bear to read the articles From n2fgc at arrl.net Mon Apr 14 23:05:46 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:05:46 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000101c89e84$12757b60$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Carol]: | And even if Steve's book were published, I can't see how it could | cut into her profits. She's a billionaire, with money still coming in, | and WB isn't hurting financially, either. [Lee]: Agreed, because especially since if/when she writes an encyclopedia, it would/could be classified as the "Official" encyclopedia. Everyone who can get it will want it, IMO. [Carol]: | I don't think that Lexicon | Steve, who after all is her admirer and whose website all of us | probably have found helpful on one occasion or another, [Lee]: Including Jo herself and some of her editors... [Carol]: | *intended* any | harm to her or any infringement of copyright. His mistake, I suppose, | was resisting the cease and desist order. [Lee]: I think his publishers might be guilty more than he. I'm given to understand that, initially, he feared infringement and didn't want to put out the book but was persuaded that no infringement was present by the RDR Publishers. [Carol]: | He should have asked what he | could do to make the book acceptable to her. Nor do I think that his | book, which is based on previously published books, could in any way | compete with her planned encyclopedia, which is based on information | he has no access to, either in her notes or in her head. [Lee]: Exactly. And so long as he didn't say "Official Encyclopedia," I guess I can't see the problem. It appears that one problem is the projected book price which is something like $24.95, and this says that money is being made from the sale of the books which is probably what translates into "cutting into" the market. I was never good at legalese. :-) As far as I'm concerned, and this may be more naive than I should be, but as long as there is a proper disclaimer and the word "Unofficial" appears and the correct attribution is made to Jo and WB and the rest, then there shouldn't be a problem. Just my two knuts. Lee Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 23:20:04 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:20:04 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: > > > > >bboyminn: > > > I believe a law school professor and a team of his students > > > have volunteered to work with Steve V. for free to help him > > > defend what they belief is an unjust and unnecessary law > > > suit. > > > zgirnius: > > Yes, Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project is helping out > > with the case. ... > > Kemper now: > First to Steve's post: It's not about the money. There have > been many books about Potter that haven't been ok'd by WB or > JKR. What you've quoted from the lexicon is from the books > or interviews, but Steve V doesn't add critical/ philosophical/ > spiritual/ psychological/etc commentary to JKR's work. Yes, > the Lexicon does have essays but the encyclopedia as I've > understood it would be printed without those essays. > bboyminn: Oh, it's about the money all right. Though I don't think JKR personally cares about the money, but you can bet Warner and every other vested interest does. Second, what I've quoted from the Lexicon is NOT /FROM/ the books or interviews, it is /ABOUT/ the books or interviews written in SteveV's own words. He does not copy or quote anything from anywhere beyond normal 'fair use'. The /From/ and /About/ aspect is at the heart of the matter. You say he doesn't add critical, philosophical, spiritual, etc commentary to his book, well neither does the World Book Encyclopedia. It, like the Lexicon, is simply a compilation of data arranged in a structured and ordered way that is NOT available from any other source. There is not a single thing in either of my sample quoted that come DIRECTLY from books or interviews. It is unique and originally written information compiled and written by Steve ABOUT those books and interviews and in my opinion, that makes it fair game. Steve has created a reference books. A Spell is defined, the origins of the incantations are researched, and references to where this Spell can be found in the books is listed. Not one bit of that other than the word 'Accio' comes from the books or from interviews. > Kemper: > > I feel if Steve V wins it could limit what fans of future > writers might want to do (fanfic/art/movie/sites/etc) because > then those writers will have to fight for control of their > work which would hurt developing a fan base. ... > bboyminn: Quite the opposite, if JKR wins 'reference works' which were previously allowed, will not no longer be allowed. This is an expansion of the rights of the author of an original work, but it is the contraction of the rights of people to write reference, speculation, and commentary on existing works. Consider this, the average college student, and even high school student must draw on existing knowledge, that is, existing written works, to write essays and term papers. They are allowed to take information from other written works and include them in their own, and this included reference and statistical data, but they can't directly quote their references beyond fair use. They must compile the data and information they collect into their own words, but that doesn't change the fact that their own words are drawn from other sources. A extremely vast majority of the Lexicon is compiled data written in SteveV's own words. And for the record, there are several essay written by SteveV on the Lexicon. Now Steve any not be able to include the essay written by others and submitted to the Lexicon because of copyright and compensation issue, but certainly SteveV can include all of his own analytical essays. Just because some one writes about the Alamo doesn't mean they are laying claim to every reference ever written about that subject. And in this case, they would simply be compiling a compendium or lexicon of all the other examples of books describing or referencing the Alamo. Again, I haven't seen the actual book, but it still sounds like 'fair use' to me. Nothing in SteveV's book is taken from JKR or her books, it is compiled ABOUT her books and again, I think that qualifies as fair use. I'm too far on the outside to see all the intricate details, so I have to rely on the judge to analyse the information fairly and to rule fairly on the matter. Notice in one of the interviews SteveV said he had previously said he hadn't published because he felt the might be a copyright conflict. However, his publisher assured him there was not, and that this type of reference work was allowed. SteveV had it written into their book writing contract that the publishing company assumed all financial and legal responsibility for copyright conflicts. So, I think SteveV is personally protected. It's just a question of whether his publishing company has enough money to fight the case to a victory. In my mind, it is not a question of who is right, it is a question of who is going to run out of money first, and I don't think Warner or JKR are going to run out of money anytime soon. Still, once again, I say that I have very conflicting emotions around this. On one hand, I don't want to go against JKR, but on the other hand, sight unseen, I do think SteveV is working from a very real and very valid legal position. Regardless of outcome, I think however the judge rules will be fair and reasonable. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 23:37:06 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:37:06 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kemper: > > I feel if Steve V wins it could limit what fans of future > writers might want to do (fanfic/art/movie/sites/etc) because > then those writers will have to fight for control of their > work which would hurt developing a fan base. ... > bboyminn: Quite the opposite, if JKR wins 'reference works' which were previously allowed, will not no longer be allowed. This is an expansion of the rights of the author of an original work, but it is the contraction of the rights of people to write reference, speculation, and commentary on existing works. Alla: Eh, but Kemper and myself were talking about fanfiction and yes, I think it will cause authors to exercise much stricter control or at least exercise their right to speak out against it. The win by JKR I believe will not lead to any decrease of the right to publish the books under fair use. Do you know why I believe it? Because from what I read, authors ALREADY have that right, to do for example what JKR did, to go after Steve. It is just a lot of them do not do it, because, well, they want to have nice relationships with fan community, or for various other reasons, speculating here obviously. But under the law theoretically they can claim that say fanfiction infringes on copyright, or the books that do not fall into fair use do the same thing, etc. Again, I am not a copyright lawyer and only remember very basics from lawschool and follow this case with great interest. But say Steve wins and Stanford gets the legal precendent of expanding fair use doctrine to the books like this. You think a lot of authors would like that at any time any person who calls himself a fan would alphabetize their world and make money out of it? I know I would not like it AT ALL. My beloved War and Peace for example has A LOT of characters, and quite a few american friends complained to me how hard it is to keep track of them. I know, maybe I should put the characters in order of alphabet and summarise what all families in the book are about? You think had Lev Tolstoy had he been alive would have been happy with me? Personally I really doubt that and I think that would have been stealing of his work and making money out of it. My opinion of course. In one of the today's links and it is of course the summary, so maybe something different was said, RDR lawyer admitted that what Steve did is infringing on copyright, period. Now whether Stanford lawyers would be able to do put it as applicable to fair use? They may be of course, but I am hoping that they will not be able to do it. I mean, really, I feel strongly about it, but it is not like it will affect me personally. I am not even a writer of the fanfiction, I just love to read it, so I guess in that sense I do want to be able to continue to. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 15 01:36:49 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:36:49 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > I know I would not like it AT ALL. My beloved War and Peace for > example has A LOT of characters, and quite a few american friends > complained to me how hard it is to keep track of them. > > I know, maybe I should put the characters in order of alphabet and > summarise what all families in the book are about? > > You think had Lev Tolstoy had he been alive would have been happy > with me? Personally I really doubt that and I think that would have > been stealing of his work and making money out of it. My opinion of > course. Potioncat: How is that different from Cliff notes or Sparks notes? And what would be wrong about it? I understand why an author would not want someone else publishing stories based on the author's works. But the Lexicon is not quite the same thing. It is a resource tool to help with all the different aspects of the series. Alas, it's beyond me! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 01:53:27 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:53:27 -0000 Subject: safe to read post Re: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > I don't know, my opinions will probably be "to die for." > > I'm really enjoying the book and would encourage others to read as > well, maybe we can have our little group discussion. Alla: OOOOOO, let's let's I already made another person from the list to read it and she seemed to like it as well. Can't wait to hear what you think. > > I'm at the point now where anything could be a spoiler--even the little > I've read from posts has colored how I react to the story. So I'm off. > Alla: So the book ends the following way............................ From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Apr 15 02:40:43 2008 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:40:43 -0000 Subject: safe to read post Re: Song for Arbonne SPOILERS of a sort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Potioncat: > > I don't know, my opinions will probably be "to die for." > > > > I'm really enjoying the book and would encourage others to read as > > well, maybe we can have our little group discussion. > > > Alla: > > OOOOOO, let's let's I already made another person from the list to read > it and she seemed to like it as well. > > Can't wait to hear what you think. Jen: That was me, right? Or did you get two people hooked? Alla even sent me a copy so I'd read it, hehe. Thanks dear. :) It was good, several of the characters were very appealing - Blaise & Lisseut were two of my favorites. One great part was a map in the beginning so you could follow all the political machinations going on. Kay did a good job of making geography very relevant to the story, which sounds boring as I write it but it wasn't! It made sense within the time period when there were seemingly constant attempts to take over land & governments. My favorite part was learning the backstories though, having a couple of mysteries to think about. JKR talks about tight plotting but this guy *really* had tight plotting imo. Everything came together at the end (except for one little thing I personally wanted to see happen - more on that after Potioncat reads). From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 15 09:41:03 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:41:03 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, As an atheist I'm not sure Steve Vander Ark would find my prayers that useful, but I do share the sentiment. At first I was totally bemused by this court case. I met Steve Vander Ark at Accio 2005 where he gave the post-banquet speech and if that's anything to go by he is/was the biggest squeeing fan-boy in the world. The impression I got was that if JKR had asked him to sacrifice his first-born he'd have thought about it. So how it got to the point where it went to court is beyond me. However as with most things once I've learnt more I've got more confused. Each new explanation from either side convinces me! Big thanks to Steve here. I am not a lawyer and I do not understand copyright, fair use provisions, etc but the most useful way to approach this seems to be by looking in detail at Lexicon entries and deciding if it is a useful and creative addition. As a non-HP non-copyright example when I'm looking things up in the bible I make extensive use of an old edition of Cruden's concordance that my dad gave me. All Cruden did was to pore through the bible and provide an index where one can look up any word and see which verses contain it. So, for example, if you watch a film where one of the characters repeatedly uses the phrase "It's better to be a live dog than a dead lion" and you have a vague recollection that it's biblical you can look up "dog" to discover that the quote is from Ecclesiastes 9:4 "For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion". Now this is all much more easily and comprehensively completed online but sometimes you just don't want to dig out and fire up the laptop. It's a great work. Perhaps JKR should have let Steve present her with the first edition of the printed lexicon just as Queen Caroline accepted the first concordance from Cruden in 1737. But who knows, perhaps it would be a breach of JKR's copyright. Luckily the professionals in the court room know a lot more about these things than me (my all time lowest test score was 15% in a law paper that was reputed to be so easy that candidates got 20% for writing their name!) Which brings me to Leaky. As a fan, and a bit of an aging fan at that, I like to get my HP news from trusted sources, so TLC is important to me. How weird is it that I can turn to the BBC, CNN, Mugglenet, etc etc, for up to the minute news about the trial but Leaky is empty! I was down heartened when they broke up The Floo Network because of the case, but not reporting it is stranger still. Cheers, Dumbledad. PS I noticed in the BBC piece that Steve Vander Ark's moved to London. Perhaps we should resurrect http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-London/ and arrange a heavy drinking session to share condolences, congratulations, disagreements, support, etc with Steve. Though as I type I can sense that might so not be what he wants now! From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 09:53:00 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:53:00 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > It is just a lot of them do not do it, because, well, they want > to have nice relationships with fan community, or for various > other reasons, speculating here obviously. Goddlefrood: An intriguing theory. > Alla: > My beloved War and Peace for example has A LOT of characters, > and quite a few american friends complained to me how hard it > is to keep track of them. > I know, maybe I should put the characters in order of alphabet > and summarise what all families in the book are about? > You think had Lev Tolstoy had he been alive would have been > happy with me? Personally I really doubt that and I think that > would have been stealing of his work and making money out of > it. My opinion of course. Goddlefrood: Being a gentleman he probably wouldn't have minded too much, not that it didn't happen at the time. That his work is now in the public domain is by the by. > Alla: > I mean, really, I feel strongly about it, but it is not like > it will affect me personally. I am not even a writer of the > fanfiction, I just love to read it, so I guess in that sense > I do want to be able to continue to. Goddlefrood: I don't think there'll be any issue with fanfiction. If all else fails, perhaps Steve might engage the Pirate Bay's legal team and send a suitably obnoxious letter upon losing, while retreating to Sweden to publish his tome. Here's what I mean: http://static.thepiratebay.org/warner_resp.txt Goddlefrood, with no opinion on the case whatever and who is the proud owner of many pirate movies and illicitly downloaded texts, shh. From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 15 10:08:36 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:08:36 -0000 Subject: Aylmer and Louise Maude (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, Alla wrote: >>> My beloved War and Peace for example has A LOT of characters, and quite a few american friends complained to me how hard it is to keep track of them. I know, maybe I should put the characters in order of alphabet and summarise what all families in the book are about? You think had Lev Tolstoy had he been alive would have been happy with me?<<< Yes ? very much so. I love War and Peace too (though I've only read it once as a young man). The translation I read was by Aylmer and Louise Maude and included exactly the addition you are thinking of. At the front was an alphabetical list of everyone's names (and some characters are known by more than one name) and a very brief description of who they are. It made W&P much easier to read. Aylmer and Louise Maude were indeed working on the translations during Tolstoy's life (he said of them "Better translators [...] could not be invented"). If the Wikipedia entry on them is to be believed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylmer_and_Louise_Maude ) Tolstoy waived his rights to translations so he clearly wasn't trying to hoard derivative works to himself. Cheers, Dumbledad. PS While I did love the Aylmer and Louise Maude translation I am tempted by that new one that got rave reviews ? have you tried it Alla? From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 15 10:34:17 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:34:17 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" wrote: > > Hi All, > >> snip > But who knows, perhaps it would be a breach of JKR's copyright. > Luckily the professionals in the court room know a lot more about > these things than me (my all time lowest test score was 15% in a law > paper that was reputed to be so easy that candidates got 20% for > writing their name!) Which brings me to Leaky. As a fan, and a bit of > an aging fan at that, I like to get my HP news from trusted sources, > so TLC is important to me. How weird is it that I can turn to the > BBC, CNN, Mugglenet, etc etc, for up to the minute news about the > trial but Leaky is empty! I was down heartened when they broke up The > Floo Network because of the case, but not reporting it is stranger > still. > > > Cheers, > > > Dumbledad. Please can anyone tell me why no one is supporting Jo Rowling here. It is her story and I agree she should stop this breach of her copywright. I support her and my prayers as a christian go with her Jayne From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 15 11:09:44 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:09:44 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, Jayne asked: >>> Please can anyone tell me why no one is supporting Jo Rowling here <<< I think they are. Aren't Alla's posts all supportive of JKR's position? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/35962 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/35965 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/35968 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/35985 An extension to your question is harder to answer. Why are there more fans here wo feel sympathetic to the lexicon's position than there are on other fan forums/boards? That might be historic, to do with the growth of HPfGU, or it might just be that we haven't heard from a representative sample of our members yet. Cheers, Dumbledad. From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Apr 15 12:29:29 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:29:29 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001a01c89ef4$59cf8440$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Jayne]: | Please can anyone tell me why no one is supporting Jo Rowling here. | It is her story and I agree she should stop this breach of her | copyright. I support her and my prayers as a Christian go with her [Lee]: If, in indisputable fact, Steve did infringe on her copyright, then I would support her efforts. However, from all I can see, he did not and, IMHO, the suit is a desperate one. How many other books have been written to which others than their authors have created compendiums, encyclopedias, and other explanatories? Besides the Bible for which there are a number of dictionaries and concordances, I can think of Star Trek, and I believe there are such for The Hobbit and LOTR as well as the Narnia Books and the Prydane books. (I know I've seen refs but haven't seen the actual materials.) I'd like to support her, but I just don't see that any law has been truly broken as yet. Actually, I pray for a gentling of her heart and that, maybe, she might collaborate and aid Steve in his endeavor. Now, that would be something indeed! Cheers, Lee Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 15 12:37:03 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:37:03 -0000 Subject: Good legal thread on the Leaky Lounge Message-ID: Hi All, Be careful what you wish for. I was hoping I might find a more detailed legal analysis of the trial and came across this thread over on Leaky's Lounge http://www.leakylounge.com/WB-JKR-vs-RDR-SVA-Part-I-t60989.html It's a detailed discussion of the case so far, including some analysis of the legalese court record. Way beyond me but wonderfully civil and informative. I do find bulletin boards tricky to read though. Cheers, Dumbledad. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 12:44:11 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:44:11 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dumbledad: As a non-HP non-copyright example when I'm looking things up in the bible I make extensive use of an old edition of Cruden's concordance that my dad gave me. All Cruden did was to pore through the bible and provide an index where one can look up any word and see which verses contain it. Alla: But this is Bible. Who will be copyright holder in this instance? I mean I know you said non-copyright example, but to me it is the key, there is no living person to do so, no? And I am asking, because who knows maybe there is a designated living person to do so and I have no clue. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 12:50:56 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:50:56 -0000 Subject: Aylmer and Louise Maude (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > My beloved War and Peace for example has A LOT of characters, > and quite a few american friends complained to me how hard it > is to keep track of them. > I know, maybe I should put the characters in order of alphabet > and summarise what all families in the book are about? > You think had Lev Tolstoy had he been alive would have been > happy with me? Personally I really doubt that and I think that > would have been stealing of his work and making money out of > it. My opinion of course. Goddlefrood: Being a gentleman he probably wouldn't have minded too much, not that it didn't happen at the time. That his work is now in the public domain is by the by. Alla: Well, yes of course it is a public domain now. That is why I said that if he should have been alive and I should have also add if he kept renewing his copyright every 50 years or whatever time frame it was before and now ?? Goddlefrood: I don't think there'll be any issue with fanfiction. If all else fails, perhaps Steve might engage the Pirate Bay's legal team and send a suitably obnoxious letter upon losing, while retreating to Sweden to publish his tome. Here's what I mean: http://static.thepiratebay.org/warner_resp.txt Alla: LOLOLOL Dumbledad: Yes ?V very much so. I love War and Peace too (though I've only read it once as a young man). The translation I read was by Aylmer and Louise Maude and included exactly the addition you are thinking of. At the front was an alphabetical list of everyone's names (and some characters are known by more than one name) and a very brief description of who they are. It made W&P much easier to read. Aylmer and Louise Maude were indeed working on the translations during Tolstoy's life (he said of them "Better translators [...] could not be invented"). If the Wikipedia entry on them is to be believed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylmer_and_Louise_Maude ) Tolstoy waived his rights to translations so he clearly wasn't trying to hoard derivative works to himself. Alla: Well, I was more thinking of doing a separate book out of it, not translator adding it to the book, you know? I mean, I would for example briefly describe Rostov??s family in my own words and all others, pretty much what you said but in separate book. Not really, I would not of course, but just giving example. I mean, it is nice that Tolstoy waived his rights to translations, but it is author??s prerogative, yes? Dumbledad: PS While I did love the Aylmer and Louise Maude translation I am tempted by that new one that got rave reviews ?V have you tried it Alla? Alla: You are talking about Pevear and Volokhonsky translation? No, I did not. I am not planning to read War and Peace in English, not just because I think that no translation can compare to original, but you know how you read the book in one language and then reread many times in the same language and the characters speak in that language in your head? Like for example I read Three musketeers in Russian many many times, had never read it in French and when I read it in English it was not the same for me. Actually, I did read that translation of War and Peace first draft in English simply because I do not have it in Russian. It was not the same, soooo not the same to me. From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 12:56:33 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:56:33 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: <001a01c89ef4$59cf8440$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > [Lee]: > If, in indisputable fact, Steve did infringe on her copyright, then I would > support her efforts. However, from all I can see, he did not and, IMHO, the > suit is a desperate one. How many other books have been written to which > others than their authors have created compendiums, encyclopedias, and other > explanatories? Besides the Bible for which there are a number of > dictionaries and concordances, I can think of Star Trek, and I believe there > are such for The Hobbit and LOTR as well as the Narnia Books and the Prydane > books. (I know I've seen refs but haven't seen the actual materials.) > Annemehr: Well, I don't think your examples are of any use unless you can tell whether they are licensed or not. They may have all been written with permission of the copyright holders. From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 13:04:34 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:04:34 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Dumbledad: > > As a non-HP non-copyright example when I'm looking things up in the > bible I make extensive use of an old edition of Cruden's concordance > that my dad gave me. All Cruden did was to pore through the bible and > provide an index where one can look up any word and see which verses > contain it. > > Alla: > > But this is Bible. Who will be copyright holder in this instance? I > mean I know you said non-copyright example, but to me it is the key, > there is no living person to do so, no? And I am asking, because who > knows maybe there is a designated living person to do so and I have no > clue. > Annemehr: I've just looked in the fronts of two bibles. One uses parts of other texts by permission. The other is copyright by the publisher, who, I can only guess, probably paid for its particular translation, as that bible was translated directly from ancient sources. I suppose anyone could do anything they want with, say, a King James version. I don't have one of those to look at. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 16:51:07 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:51:07 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Dumbledad: > >> snip > > But who knows, perhaps it would be a breach of JKR's copyright. > > ... > Jayne: > Please can anyone tell me why no one is supporting Jo Rowling here. > It is her story and I agree she should stop this breach of her > copywright. I support her and my prayers as a christian go with her Kemper now: If you've only read Dumbledad's post I can see where you might see that no one is supporting JKR. I would encourage you to read upthread and follow the various branches. My hope is that whatever the decision that it is the best and highest interest of the writer as well as the fandom. Kemper From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 17:29:15 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:29:15 -0000 Subject: Good legal thread on the Leaky Lounge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Dumbledad: > > Be careful what you wish for. I was hoping I might find a more detailed > legal analysis of the trial and came across this thread over on Leaky's > Lounge http://www.leakylounge.com/WB-JKR-vs-RDR-SVA-Part-I-t60989.html > It's a detailed discussion of the case so far, including some analysis > of the legalese court record. Way beyond me but wonderfully civil and > informative. I do find bulletin boards tricky to read though. Kemper now: Here's a link to the news you were hoping for a Leaky: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/15/first-day-of-jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-trial Kemper From crookshanks4 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 17:45:26 2008 From: crookshanks4 at yahoo.com (Maria Gromova) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Prayers for the Lexicon Steve Message-ID: <713467.8392.qm@web62208.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Now, my sincere prayers for Steve too!!! I think someone's being just plain greedy, which Tolstoy most certainly was NOT! What next, all encyclopaedias will be forbidden because they all reference other people's work, and no student will be allowed to write a thesis!? Honestly, these rich people will suffer damage from the publishing of one book!? But to some people even a lot of money isn't enough, I suppose. I HOPE it wasn't JKR idea, but an idea of these great companies that milk money off Harry Potter, because if it IS her idea, I'll lose all my respect for her, get rid of all her books and all things coonected with them and unsubscribe from this list!!!! Maria, from Russia. between 0000-00-00 and 9999-99-99 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at comcast.net Tue Apr 15 18:22:55 2008 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:22:55 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" wrote: > Please can anyone tell me why no one is supporting Jo Rowling here. > It is her story and I agree she should stop this breach of her > copywright. I support her and my prayers as a christian go with her > > Jayne I obviously can't speak for those who have been expressing support for Steve but I strongly believe that the outpouring of support has to do with the fact that Steve was one of the early, active members of HPfGU and that people remember him fondly. As someone who used to be active myself in the 2002-2004 period, I had several pleasant interactions with him and had a great deal of respect for him. That said, several of the posters have admitted that they have not been following the case and are unaware of the events leading up to this trial. I, OTOH, have been reading everything I could since it first surfaced last autumn and based on what I've learned, I have lost any and all respect I once had for the founder of the Lexicon. I would respectfully suggest that those who support Steve make the effort to fully inform themselves of the background and history of this case. There are a multitude of links, the best of which are through TLC. If you continue to take his side in this matter, fair enough. Personally, I think he is way, way out of line both legally and ethically. Sadly, Jo S., Rowling's girl, through and through From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 15 19:12:01 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:12:01 -0000 Subject: Good legal thread on the Leaky Lounge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, Kemper alerted me to: >>> Here's a link to the news you were hoping for a Leaky: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/15/first-day-of-jkr-wb-vs-rdr- books-trial <<< Thanks Kemper. I was relieved when I saw Melissa's transcript go up. I don't know what kind of Leaky news blackout I'd constructed in my mind but I was pleased to see I was worrying about nothing. It's a great post too, really interesting transcript. I'm still not sure what I think though; arghhhhh. Cheers, Dumbledad. From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 15 19:32:55 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:32:55 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, After I mentioned Cruden's concordance Alla pointed out: >>> But this is Bible. Who will be copyright holder in this instance? I mean I know you said non-copyright example, but to me it is the key, there is no living person to do so, no? <<< No, I wasn't bringing in Cruden's concordance as an example of copyright infringement. What I was hoping to point out was that derivative works, even ones that are almost entirely the rearrangement of the original text, can be highly creative and extremely useful. In court JKR dismisses the importance of alphabetical rearrangement (JKR in Melissa's transcript): >>> An alphabetical [list] is the laziest way to rearrange and sell my work <<< But the enormous painstaking work Cruden did in rendering the bible alphabetically word by word is what makes it distinct and what makes it useful, and certainly wasn't lazy. Now, whether such alphabetical word-by-word rearrangement infringes copyright or represents fair use is a legal argument that I don't understand. What I do understand is that it is different from the original work, it is useful, and it should be available. But, as you point out the bible is not copyright (at least the King James version that Cruden worked with isn't) so is this relevant to the lexicon? I don't know. For all the lexicon's usefulness it is not as useful as Cruden, it's not as thorough. I'd find the lexicon useful enough to buy in book form though I know that's not a legal argument. Cheers, Dumbledad. PS The actual argument of whether bible translations are copyright is another interesting one I don't understand. I use http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/ as a guide. For example the King James version (1611) is public domain but the Tyndale version (1526) isn't. From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 19:58:20 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:58:20 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jo S.: > I would respectfully suggest that those who support Steve make the > effort to fully inform themselves of the background and history of > this case. There are a multitude of links, the best of which are > through TLC. If you continue to take his side in this matter, fair > enough. Personally, I think he is way, way out of line both legally > and ethically. And I would respectfully suggest that there are a good deal of us who have follow the case and who support Steve anyway. Personally, I think JKR is ridiculous to think that the Lexicon book could compete with her encyclopedia, but then, that's a different thought. Regardless, I get the feeling that JKR supporters will get their way. It seems unlikely that a judge would rule against her to set this new precedence for fair use - judges have been known to make rulings against convention just to not set a precedent. My two cents. ~Ali From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Apr 15 20:13:14 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:13:14 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Good legal thread on the Leaky Lounge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002401c89f35$22ec1740$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Dumbledad]: | don't know what kind of Leaky news blackout I'd constructed | in my mind | but I was pleased to see I was worrying about nothing. It's a great | post too, really interesting transcript. I'm still not sure what I | think though; arghhhhh. [Lee]: Well, we have still to hear Steve's transcript. I think the guilt falls more on RDR than Steve. I would say that, from all the things I've read including the Leaky transcript, Steve was ill-advised to go ahead with a written Lexicon. Originally, I gather he didn't want to do it but, after some conversations with the publisher, he proceeded to draft it. It appears to me that if he had gone to the publisher with the idea and lack of concern as to infringement, he would be a guilty party, indeed. However, the fact that he hesitated and only because he was assured by RDR that there shouldn't be any infringement problem before he released the draft says to me that Steve operated with integrity and got bad advice which he followed. If RDR holds to its contract of handling all the legal costs, etc., then, at least, Steve won't be taken to the monetary cleaners. However this turns out, I know valuable lessons will have been learned by all. to Steve, I would say next time follow your gut instinct and don't let anyone change your mind! :) Cheers, Lee Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 20:54:39 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:54:39 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" wrote: > Personally, I > think JKR is ridiculous to think that the Lexicon book could compete > with her encyclopedia, but then, that's a different thought. > Alla: I just wanted to say that even though I am hoping that JKR will win very much I definitely think that this argument had nothing to do with anything. I mean, maybe JKR personally felt that it is indeed true or whatever, but I think it IS rather silly and has nothing to do with the reason why the lawsuit was brought or at least should have been brought. Of course I do not think that Lexicon book would be able to compete with her encyclopedia and I sure know which one I would buy - before this lawsuit I would have definitely bought both. I have plenty of HP related books at home and that is why that is one point I am quite confident on commenting. They ARE different from what I believe Steve's book will be, but I digress. Yes, I disagree with JKR that it would have hurt her sales. But I wholeheartedly agree that if the book IS the copy of the lexicon with nothing else it is infringing on her copyright and in essense stealing of her work. No, I do not think that the examples of lexicon entries that were brought up are adding up much new information or intepretation of the work, to me they are AT MOST summary of the work in Steve's (or whoever was typing them) words. And after all that is how I was using the lexicon, to find the fact FROM THE BOOKS if I was too lasy to get the books. Never once I was using Lexicon to find creative intepretation of the works and if asked, I can give you names of the books, where IMO I found PLENTY of creative interpretation. I mean, no scratch that I of course read some of the essays there, but again it does not look like they are in the book, no? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 21:09:20 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:09:20 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: bboyminn wrote: > > Second, what I've quoted from the Lexicon is NOT /FROM/ > the books or interviews, it is /ABOUT/ the books or interviews > written in SteveV's own words. He does not copy or quote > anything from anywhere beyond normal 'fair use'. > > Steve has created a reference books. A Spell is defined, the > origins of the incantations are researched, and references to > where this Spell can be found in the books is listed. Not one > bit of that other than the word 'Accio' comes from the books > or from interviews. Carol responds: Exactly. the whole concept of a reference book is that its fact-based (in this case, based on fictional fact) and does *not* contain interpretation or opinion. JKR states that all the work that went into it is her own, but as we can see from the inconsistencies in her books and her own statement that she hasn't reread the books since they were published, she hasn't done a great deal of researching within her own books and, it seems, doesn't realize the amount of work that it takes to find the relevant quotes to compile the needed information. This morning, for example, I posted on Aberforth and the references to him either by name of as the bartender at the Hog's Head (BTW, I forgot one--Trelawney mentions "the uncouth barman" who caught Severus Snape listening in on her job interview). It probably took ten or fifteen minutes to compose that post based on memory alone. If I had actually hunted up the relevant passages and quoted them, it would have taken much longer. The post I wrote on Voldemort's powers probably took three hours to compose. Finding the relevant passages and working them into what amounts to an encyclopedia entry would take similar amounts of time, and no doubt the entries were revised and new ones written each time a new book cam out as new information became available. Indexers, the compilers of concordances, and similar researchers work long and hard organizing the words of other people in an alphabetical format so that others can find those references without effort. Similarly, the Lexicon puts together all the references to a particular person or potion or spell or creature so that a Harry Potter reader can find them or remember them. JKR's claim that the format is not useful is simply erroneous, as those of us who have used the Lexicon know. the Lexicon by no means substitutes for reading the books. It is not an imaginative work; it does not create suspense or make the reader feel any sort of emotion. It lacks JKR's slightly warped sense of humor. It tries to provide background information on the etymology of spells, which, JKR to the contrary, is not something that any seven-year-old with a Latin dictionary could do. (Erm, JKR--most seven-year-olds these days can't even use a dictionary in their own native language.) And just how Steve was supposed to know that Alohomora was based on a West African word, which she claims he could have done by Googling it, is beyond me. As someone (the defense lawyer?) indicated, the sources of Lexicon Steve's information are indicated by lead-ins, such as "according to Phineas Nigellus" (which is to say, according to a specific character created by Rowling herself). What follows is not always the character's exact words, but have JKR and her lawyers never heard the term "paraphrase," defined by Merriam-Webster Online as "a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form"? As long as the meaning is not altered and exact phrases are placed in quotation marks and the source is indicated with an attribution or page or chapter reference, paraphrase is perfectly legitimate, and in fact eliminates JKR's objection that her words are being "stolen." No, JKR. Your words aren't being stolen. Your characters, spells, places, and artifacts are being defined and arranged so that the references to them in your books can be easily accessed. Not only is there nothing wrong with such a work, it is highly useful. She complains about the quality of the writing (without citing a single instance of bad writing) yet complains that Steve has stolen her words. Has he stolen her bad writing or is she trying to have it both ways? Kemper: > > > > I feel if Steve V wins it could limit what fans of future writers might want to do (fanfic/art/movie/sites/etc) because then those writers will have to fight for control of their work which would hurt developing a fan base. ... > bboyminn: > > Quite the opposite, if JKR wins 'reference works' which were > previously allowed, will not no longer be allowed. This is > an expansion of the rights of the author of an original work, > but it is the contraction of the rights of people to write > reference, speculation, and commentary on existing works. > > Consider this, the average college student, and even high > school student must draw on existing knowledge, that is, > existing written works, to write essays and term papers. > They are allowed to take information from other written > works and include them in their own, and this included > reference and statistical data, but they can't directly > quote their references beyond fair use. They must compile > the data and information they collect into their own words, > but that doesn't change the fact that their own words are > drawn from other sources. Carol responds: Exactly. Having written a six-hundred-plus page doctoral dissertation and numerous critical essays and research papers, not to mention teaching college English for eighteen years, I can just imagine the disastrous consequences if "fair use" is limited by this case and students and researchers can no longer quote or paraphrase their sources in literary analysis. JKR *thinks* she's fighting plagiarism and limiting only a certain kind of "companion book," but I'm afraid that the limitations would extend far beyond books like the Lexicon. and woe betide the writers of fanfic if an encyclopedia is considered plagiarism! Steve never once indicates that the work in the Lexicon (other than the time line) is his own. He is merely reorganizing JKR's scattered (and sometimes inconsistent) references to a particular person, place, or thing for easy reference. It's sort of like cleaning up her desk or organizing her notes on file cards on a larger scale, except that it involves introducing quotations and paraphrases and providing introductory or supplementary material (such as suggested etymologies) and transitions between the quoted or paraphrased passages. In short, it's like writing a report as opposed to an analysis. (Let's hope that children are still encouraged to quote from the books they've read in their book reports! Or is even that--the summarizing of plots and the naming of characters--to be considered "plagiarism" because it doesn't involve interpretation? bboyminn: > > A extremely vast majority of the Lexicon is compiled data written in SteveV's own words. > Carol responds: It isn't analysis, exactly, but it's paraphrased from the books and credited to the source, which is perfectly legitimate and, as the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, fifth edition, indicates, "easier to integrate into the text" than quotations (2.7.1). bboyminn: > Again, I haven't seen the actual book, but it still sounds like 'fair use' to me. Nothing in SteveV's book is taken from JKR or her books, it is compiled ABOUT her books and again, I think that qualifies as fair use. Carol: Exactly. And I sincerely hope that "fair use" is not restricted as a result of this case. bboyminn: > Notice in one of the interviews SteveV said he had previously said he hadn't published because he felt the might be a copyright conflict. However, his publisher assured him there was not, and that this type of reference work was allowed. Carol responds: Exactly. Poor man. He was trying to do what was right--and now he's crying on the witness stand because JKR is accusing him of plagiarism. And now she's even claiming that she only consulted the Lexicon twice before giving it an award on her website--yet she's read the whole thing and thinks the hard work behind it is her own? And she's too distraught to write her own reference work because it's "drudgery"? I'm sorry, JKR, but I don't think you're the one whose life and career are being ruined. bboyminn: > Still, once again, I say that I have very conflicting emotions around this. On one hand, I don't want to go against JKR, but on the other hand, sight unseen, I do think SteveV is working from a very real and very valid legal position. > > Regardless of outcome, I think however the judge rules will be fair and reasonable. Carol responds: I think that JKR is, shall we say, mistaken to call Steve's work "shoddy," and she seems to have only a limited understanding of copyright and plagiarism. However, I do think that RDR should have asked JKR's permission to publish the Lexicon and submitted the manuscript for her corrections to make sure that it didn't include any "factual" errors (rather than suggesting that they just print it from the website). I have no objections to Steve's receiving royalties for his hard work in creating a useful reference for HP fans, and I don't consider what he had done to be plagiarism or copyright infringement. But both sides should have been more considerate. If the summarized testimony I read today is accurate, we have screaming lawyers and scheming publishers muddying the waters. What's important here, much more important than the mental state and emotions of the plaintiff and defendant or their profits and losses, is the concept of fair use, which is in desperate need of clarification. I only hope that the rights of both sides--the original author and those who wish to make fair use of her book for the benefit of other readers--are respected. Meantime, I hope that JKR realizes that she's not the only one who's suffering here, and that Steve V. would never have produced the Lexicon in the first place if he hadn't been a devoted fan. I'm not impressed by the representatives of RDR, but Steve V. himself is in need of empathy and compassion. Carol, hoping for a fair judgment and fearing the worst if Steve V. loses From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 22:16:20 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:16:20 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine Message-ID: I don't know anything about the concept of fair use as it exists in Britain, which JKR may be somewhat familiar with, but since Steve Vander Ark is an American and we're dealing with an American publisher in an American court, it's the American definition that matters. Is the printed version of the Lexicon, sold for profit (but not likely to sell nearly as many copies as the HP books themselves!) fair use or not? The best way to determine that is by consulting an authoritative source that defines the concept and discusses its implications. The best source I know of is "Introduction to Fair Use" at http://www.publaw.com/work.html I'll quote some of the relevant portions here--for the rest, you'll need to go to the web page itself. "There is virtually no question which occurs more frequently to those in the publishing community than "how much of someone else's work may I use without asking permission?" The answer rests in the concept of "fair use" and the fair use exception in the Copyright Act. "Fair use is a limitation on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. The roots of what we today refer to as fair use are well established in our early English common law tradition. The "fair use doctrine" is a complex exception to the "limited monopoly" vested in authors by the United States Constitution and Copyright Act. The guiding principle of the fair use doctrine is to make available, for limited purposes, reasonable public access to copyrighted works. "Section 107 of the Copyright Act, entitled, "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use," is the statutory codification of the fair use doctrine. This judicially developed concept strives to balance the public's need to know and be informed against authors' incentives to create. The copyright law contemplates that fair use of a copyrighted work without permission shall be for purposes such as (1) criticism and comment, (2) parody and satire, (3) scholarship and research, (4) news reporting and (5) teaching, and that such fair use will not result in the infringement of a copyrighted work. As one may expect, authors and publishers usually take a restrictive view of the fair use doctrine, while users of copyrighted materials generally take a more expansive view." So far, so good. "Fair use" allows the use of a copyrighted work *without permission* not only for "criticism and comment" (which JKR's side complains is missing from the Lexicon) but for "scholarship and research" and for "teaching." It looks as if literary critics, English teachers, and students writing either literary analysis or book reports are protected. (Fanfic isn't even considered, as it probably didn't exist when Section 107 was written.) Does Steve's work fall under "scholarship and research"? That is the question. Because literary works can be written about by persons other than the author in a variety of ways (I'm paraphrasing here), it's impossible to formulate exact rules and fair use rulings often conflict with one another. However, U.S. courts consider four "fair use factors" to determine "whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is fair use." I'm listing those four "factors" here, verbatim from the website, which, in turn, is quoting Section 107 of the Copyright Act: "1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; "2. the nature of the copyrighted work; "3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and "4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." It seems to me that number 2 is not particularly relevant, but the "commercial nature" of the Lexicon (RDR's intention to sell it for profit) is probably quite important. Number 3 can only be determined by a close comparison of the two works, and, given the nature of the Lexicon as a reference work, it would naturally contain more quotation and paraphrase than literary analysis, which would be the writer's interpretation of the author's work supported with quotations and paraphrases and examples form the original work. As for item 4, it seems to me that no one would buy the printed Lexicon who hadn't already read the HP books (and felt a need for clarification or definition or references to pages on which the work occurs--of course, if a person is writing literary criticism intended for publication or even submission to a college English teacher, they'll cite the original work and not the Lexicon if they expect to be published or receive a decent grade). Obviously, or, I hope obviously, the mere fact that the printed Lexicon will be published for profit does not mean that it's not fair use. If that were the case, literary journals would not exist and scholarly publishers would go out of business. Half the books I own are literary criticism or anthologies of previously published literary works, with notes and introductions as the only "original" portions of the printed book. So the question is whether the Lexicon was created primarily to profit from a previously published work or for an educational purpose. Since it was originally created to be distributed free to all users online, I think that Steve V. can claim that the book is *primarily* noncommercial and falls under "research and scholarship." (The judge may not agree with me, of course.) As for the amount of text from JKR's books that Steve has quoted or paraphrased, "the scope of fair use is greater when an 'informational' work--a work of facts or information, a work of scholarship or of news reporting--as opposed to a more 'creative' work--a work of fiction--is involved or when a work is designed to inform or educate rather than to entertain." IOW, a reference work like the Lexicon has more protection from fair use than a creative work such as a novel borrowing concepts or characters (which pretty much rules out fanfic, at least for profit). The amount of work copied, however, may be a problem, even in a reference work. Obviously, Steve V. can't take the books in their entirety and simply rearrange them alphabetically within categories. I don't think, however, that he has done that. If we took a word count of the entire Lexicon and a word count of the combined HP books, we would see that his book is substantially shorter, probably shorter than PS (though I haven't checked and am only guessing). Moreover, a substantial portion of the words used are not JKR's; they are paraphrases or summaries or etymologies. For example, "The Wizarding World Atlas & Gazetteer" begins, "Separated from Muggles since 1689, the Wizarding World has grown and developed independently from the rest of society, though it still parallels it in many ways. For the most part, wizarding places today are kept well-hidden from Muggle eyes. Here you can find information on these places, both wonderful and mundane, both hidden and in plain sight." JKR can't claim that these words are her own; they are primarily inference based on the reading of her works. (The date 1689 seems to be taken from DH; earlier books give the date for the Statute of Secrecy as 1692. But the Lexicon doesn't even note the discrepancy and simply takes DH at its word.) If the essays included in this section and elsewhere are included in the printed book, the percentage of JKR's own words is even smaller. As for harm to the market for the HP books, I doubt that they'll be affected in the least by any reference work or work of literary criticism. And no one in their right mind, including Steve V. and his publishers, thinks that Steve's book can compete with JKR's definitive encyclopedia. It was neither created nor published for that purpose, and any HP fan with $25.00 in hand and the choice of buying either his book or hers, not both, will choose hers once it's written. Carol, hoping that she hasn't bored anyone but concerned as a professional in the publishing field and sometime writer-researcher with the implications of this case for scholars, researchers, and literary critics From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 23:32:27 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:32:27 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48053B0B.2020501@yahoo.com> Carol said this on 16/04/2008 06:16: > The best source I know of is "Introduction to Fair Use" at > http://www.publaw. com/work. html Thanks for the citation and summary, Carol. I can see both sides. From what little I've read, JKR's claim for copyright infringement centers more around the generality of her creation -- use of the characters in general -- than in specifics of percentage of quoted material, and that the financial impact will be more in the area of future works (her upcoming lexicon) than on the present works. In light of your discussion, both of those arguments may be hard to sustain. The portions of fair use law you've quoted make no mention of impact on potential future creative efforts or markets, only on those already published. I think the fact that JKR has been tolerant and encouraging of the website itself may also harm her argument. If the Internet is taken as a publishing medium, then in fact the lexicon has already been published -- and with her blessing -- in another form. I think this is where her threats about potential harmful impact on fan works becomes more real. If RDR does win the case, authors and publishers will in all likelihood become more draconian, and whether they have a legal leg to do so is irrelevant; most fans will run away in terror at the mere sight of a Cease and Desist letter. My decidedly non-legal mind sees the case being decided in Steve/RDR's favor, but then dreads the inevitable resulting chilling effect. CJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 00:38:16 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:38:16 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: <001a01c89ef4$59cf8440$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > [Jayne]: > | Please can anyone tell me why no one is supporting Jo > | Rowling here. It is her story and I agree she should stop > | this breach of her copyright. I support her and my prayers > | as a Christian go with her > > [Lee]: > If, in indisputable fact, Steve did infringe on her copyright, > then I would support her efforts. ... bboyminn: And so would I. I can understand JKR supporters not wanting to side against one of their favorite authors, but his is not about who you like, this is about the law, and you can't change the law just to suit someone because you like them. That fact remains that in modern interpretations of copyright law unauthorized 'reference works' are allowed. That means that if SteveV wins, things stay as they are now. If JKR wins, that means an new and stricter interpretation of the law. That means that what was once allowed is no longer allowed. That is what gauls me, that people can't see that a win for JKR means more restrictive copyright practices. Again, I understand wanting to support your favorite author, but you simply can NOT twist laws in favor of some one you like and against some one you don't like. Laws need to be interpreted in a fair and unbiased way, and I see so many supporters of JKR, as blind supporters. You like who you like and you don't want that adoration clouded by facts. Again, I haven't seen the book, but I have seen the Lexicon, and I see nothing there (that can't be fixed) that constitutes a violation of JKR's copyrights. SteveV has written a fair and reasonable 'reference work' ABOUT the HP world which is, and has been, considered fair use, up until now. SteveV maintains the status quo. It is JKR who will set new precedence, and create new stricter interpretations of the law. I love JKR, I love her to pieces, but I'm not about to let that blind me to the law. Some things must be held higher than fan adoration, and the law and justice are one of them. Again, I'm too far removed to see all the details, so I trust the judges to render a fair and unbiased verdict whatever that verdict might be. If you think to demonize SteveV, read about his testimony today in court, he broke down in tears at this turn of events. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080415/ap_en_ot/harry_potter_lawsuit;_ylt=AqNHyGWN6IBBUJgZhFhOFx1xFb8C Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 00:56:16 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:56:16 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Carol" wrote: ... > > I have no objections to Steve's receiving royalties for his > hard work in creating a useful reference for HP fans, and I > don't consider what he had done to be plagiarism or copyright > infringement. But both sides should have been more considerate. > If the summarized testimony I read today is accurate, we have > screaming lawyers and scheming publishers muddying the waters. > > What's important here, much more important than the mental > state and emotions of the plaintiff and defendant or their > profits and losses, is the concept of fair use, which is in > desperate need of clarification. I only hope that the rights > of both sides--the original author and those who wish to make > fair use of her book for the benefit of other readers--are > respected. > > Meantime, I hope that JKR realizes that she's not the only one > who's suffering here, and that Steve V. would never have > produced the Lexicon in the first place if he hadn't been a > devoted fan. I'm not impressed by the representatives of RDR, > but Steve V. himself is in need of empathy and compassion. > > Carol, hoping for a fair judgment and fearing the worst if > Steve V. loses > bboyminn: Amen to those words of wisdom. Perhaps, Carol, this would be a good time to remind the group what you do for a living. It's not definitive, but it does lend some creditability to your opinion. In case, Carol doesn't get around to it, she works in the publishing industry. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 00:58:35 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:58:35 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > And so would I. I can understand JKR supporters not wanting to > side against one of their favorite authors, but his is not about > who you like, this is about the law, and you can't change the > law just to suit someone because you like them. Alla: And how do you know that people who support JKR's stance support it JUST because they like her? > That fact remains that in modern interpretations of copyright > law unauthorized 'reference works' are allowed. Alla: The fact remains that it is NOT a fact that Steve's book falls UNDER those reference works that are allowed in the law as it stands today from what I read. > That means that if SteveV wins, things stay as they are now. Alla: No it does not mean that in my opinion. > If JKR wins, that means an new and stricter interpretation of > the law. That means that what was once allowed is no longer > allowed. Alla: I am amazed really. From what I read the status quo as it is right now means that the book like Lexicon is NOT allowed per status quo, so where do you see stricter interpretation, beats me. What I see is the Stanford taking on their desire to EXPAND fair use to allow Steve's book to be published, to set a new precedent, etc. My opinion that Steve's book can be allowed only if the fair use will be expanded. > That is what gauls me, that people can't see that a win for > JKR means more restrictive copyright practices. Again, I > understand wanting to support your favorite author, but > you simply can NOT twist laws in favor of some one you like > and against some one you don't like. Laws need to be > interpreted in a fair and unbiased way, and I see so many > supporters of JKR, as blind supporters. You like who you > like and you don't want that adoration clouded by facts. Alla: Or can it be that you are mistaken and under the law as it stands JKR will win and no restrictions whatsoever will follow? So, yeah I do not believe that twisting of the law will be needed. And um, I don't want adoration to be clouded by facts? I can only say that apparently we read different set of facts. But yes, I also hope that the laws will be applied in the fair and unbiased way. I believe that this is all that will be needed for JKR's win. > > Again, I haven't seen the book, but I have seen the Lexicon, > and I see nothing there (that can't be fixed) that constitutes > a violation of JKR's copyrights. SteveV has written a fair > and reasonable 'reference work' ABOUT the HP world which is, > and has been, considered fair use, up until now. Alla: Yes, YOU have not seen anything there that constitutes a violation of JKR's copyrights. Experts for the plaintiff apparently saw a plenty. And yes, of course experts for the defendant will be saying a different thing, but surely there is SOME ground to advance plaintiff's argument if the number 84 to 16 came up. Surely there is a legit argument to make for it, not just argue it out of thing air. So, it is a contested argument that what Lexicon is all about was considered Fair use up till now. It COULD be, it could be not. >> If you think to demonize SteveV, read about his testimony > today in court, he broke down in tears at this turn of > events. > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080415/ap_en_ot/harry_potter_lawsuit;_ylt =AqNHyGWN6IBBUJgZhFhOFx1xFb8C > > Steve/bboyminn Alla: Uh, they made him do it. Right. But he was smart enough to put indemnification provision in his contract. He just could not imagine what could happen at all. And do you remember that up till recently there was a COPYRIGHT on everything on Lexicon? That I actually find the most unbelievable thing in all of this. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 01:03:42 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:03:42 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: <48053B0B.2020501@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: >> If RDR does win the case, authors and publishers will in all likelihood > become more draconian, and whether they have a legal leg to do so is > irrelevant; most fans will run away in terror at the mere sight of a > Cease and Desist letter. > > My decidedly non-legal mind sees the case being decided in Steve/RDR's > favor, but then dreads the inevitable resulting chilling effect. Alla: As I said before this IS my biggest scare indeed. But if this happens, upset as I will be over authors being more draconian, I will be watching this with grim satisfaction. I will be thinking, well, what do you think, writers learned their lesson. They saw what happens to those writers who are tolerant and encouraging of fandom. If people abuse the privilege of being allowed to play in their universe, I would not blame writers one bit of at least trying to fight it. But I will be upset indeed. I happen to LOVE fanfiction. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 01:06:44 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:06:44 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > bboyminn: > > > > And so would I. I can understand JKR supporters not wanting to > > side against one of their favorite authors, but his is not about > > who you like, this is about the law, and you can't change the > > law just to suit someone because you like them. > > Alla: > > And how do you know that people who support JKR's stance support it > JUST because they like her? Kemper now: I was just writing a response when Alla's articulate post popped up. Snipping everything else... I could not agree more with Alla. Kemper, who does not know JKR and can't speak to liking/disliking her as a person... though I can speak about liking/disliking what she wrote but you can see that on Main From kempermentor at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 01:10:13 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:10:13 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen > wrote: > > > If RDR does win the case, authors and publishers will in all > > likelihood > > become more draconian, and whether they have a legal leg to do so > > is irrelevant; most fans will run away in terror at the mere sight > > of a Cease and Desist letter. > Alla: > As I said before this IS my biggest scare indeed. > ... > But I will be upset indeed. I happen to LOVE fanfiction. Kemper now: I agree. Again. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 01:18:54 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:18:54 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480553FE.7030805@yahoo.com> dumbledore11214 said On 16/04/2008 09:03: > I will be thinking, well, what do you think, writers learned their > lesson. They saw what happens to those writers who are tolerant and > encouraging of fandom. If people abuse the privilege of being > allowed to play in their universe, I would not blame writers one bit > of at least trying to fight it. But my point was, assuming I understand the law correctly (and that's a BIG assumption :-) ) that Steve has NOT abused his right to play in JKR's world. He has played within the boundaries circumscribed by US law. CJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 01:33:52 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:33:52 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: <480553FE.7030805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > But my point was, assuming I understand the law correctly (and that's a > BIG assumption :-) ) that Steve has NOT abused his right to play in > JKR's world. He has played within the boundaries circumscribed by US law. Alla: Oh sorry then. My opinion that he did, but of course the law may be interpreted differently, but we do agree that the case may have this effect on fandoms regardless of whether one think what Steve did was right or not, yes? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 02:00:43 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:00:43 -0000 Subject: My Boy Jack - Sunday, April 20 Message-ID: Just a reminder to all the fans that this Sunday April 20 will be the PBS airing of 'My Boy Jack'. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 16 03:56:12 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:56:12 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > > > And how do you know that people who support JKR's stance support it > > JUST because they like her? > > Kemper now: > I was just writing a response when Alla's articulate post popped up. > Snipping everything else... I could not agree more with Alla. > > Kemper, who does not know JKR and can't speak to liking/disliking her > as a person... though I can speak about liking/disliking what she > wrote but you can see that on Main Magpie: I agree with Alla too--and not out of love for JKR. I just heard a reference to "Castle Rock" that sounded very similar. Somebody wrote a book called the Seinfeld Aptitude Test, which basically took facts from Seinfeld and put them into a trivia book. The court ruled that if you take someone else's fictional facts and make a derivative work, you did wrong. RDR would try to claim that the Lexicon adds scholarly analysis, but I don't really think it does. I can see how it's not like an encyclopedia, because creating fictional facts is a big part of creating the book. In fact, that seemed to be a flaw in the cross examination of JKR, that every time the lawyer tried to bring up how much work went into the Lexicon JKR could remind them that yes, she knows how much work went into it because she did all of it when she created everything in it. I honestly have no desire for JKR to win on a personal level, or for Steve to lose, or vice versa. My limited understanding of the law just leads me to think JKR is correct. -m From malra at shaw.ca Wed Apr 16 08:18:45 2008 From: malra at shaw.ca (Teri Gardner) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:18:45 -0700 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve and the great debate on Copyright. In-Reply-To: <1208308007.1649.54481.m47@yahoogroups.com> References: <1208308007.1649.54481.m47@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <3F1F1AB12FBD4949990815AE3F1BC268@TeriPC> HPFGU-OTChatterHi All, I've been a member of this list for quite a few years now, but I haven't responded much to it because I haven't really had much to say. However, lately I've been seeing posts regarding the court case between WB/JKR and RDR/SVA and had to put in my two cents. I'm NOT a lawyer and I want to say that up front, but I have worked in copyright law, trademark law and entertainment law as a legal secretary (and will be going back into entertainment law shortly), and I have had several conversations with lawyers regarding fandom endeavours and, more specifically, this case. I should also piont out that I'm Canadian and have only worked for Canadian law firms, but several lawyers I've worked for also have licenses to practice law in the U.S. Canadian copyright laws are very similar to American ones. And 100% of the lawyers I've spoken to believe that fandom endeavours are copyright infringement by their very nature. The indulgence of authors, production companies (for film and television) and other creators of original materials that would possibly draw a fandom is largely that, indulgence. There are a number of original creators out there who tightly control their fans' activities or do not allow for fanfiction, art, etc. at all on their works: Anne Rice is a good example (however much I despise the woman, she does exercise her rights under copyright laws very closely). Anne McCaffrey is well known to dictate what fan groups for her Pern series (Weyrs) will exist or not and how they are organized, etc. Film production companies such as Warner Bros. and Disney are very strict on how their copyright and trademarks are used. Paramount isn't as tight with their controls, especially with the Star Trek franchise, but if they choose to change their minds on this, they can and have a right and have a case they can very likely take to court. Some authors I know of are very loose with their copyright and think that allowing fans to take off with their works and do what they will, as long as they are not attempting to make money off the fanworks, is a good way to encourage sales, build a good relationship with fans, and well, it's damn flattering. They also see it as a way for fans to hone their own skills to eventually go pro with their own original creations. Other original works creators, such as Wendy and Richard Pini, creators of the Elfquest series, have put up some restictions, namely fans can play in their world, or create clubs based on the world of Elfquest, but are not allowed to use the characters that are in their original works. Many fanclubs also solicit funds to keep their websites up, pen and paper zines printed and mailed out, etc. Since there is an exchange of money (most clubs operate at a loss, but that's beside the point) and that is against copyright laws (from what I understand, Colleen Doran shut down her official fanclub for A Distant Soil in the early 1990's because of this issue - the club operated at a loss, but there was concern that there were legal ramifcations because of the money that was invovled, concerns on where it was going and the club had the term "official" attached to it and thus made her liable should anything go awry.) Now, when I asked about the situation with RDR books/Steve Van der Ark, I've been told that WB and JKR are more in the right than the other side is. Yes, reference books have been done with other series (such as JRR Tolkien's work) but usually these are done with permission of the author or the author's estate. In the case of books like the Bible or older works of literature, they are in the public domain and there's not much anyone can do about it. The Lexicon website itself certainly can follow under fair use, as a derivatve work, but it contains critiques, analyses and commetaries on the site and it brings something new to the table in that way. Without publishing those or even some of them, the Lexicon is reduced to a rearrangement of the work of JKR and that does not fall under fair use. From what I understand, the other books out there that are references to JRK's work, not only contain something that can be considered analytical of her work, a commentary or critique, but also have been put out with the blessing of WB and JKR. Since parody and satire fall under fair use, these books (I know of only one, but there could be others out there I'm not aware of) can be published and sold under the law. So, my next question was, what if RDR/SVA win the case? What does that mean for fandom? What it means is authors, cartoonists, graphic novelists, artists, production companies, etc. will likely start clamping down on fandom. Why? Because the fear will now be that a precedent has been set where fandom works can fall under the canopy of fair use and that will create a situation where original creators now have little or no control over how their works are exploited, used, abused and presented. They now are in a free for all and if a fan decides they want to publish a fan story, fan art, or something else, they may have a case to proceed with it. Again, a new question, what happens if WB/JKR win the case? The case alone may scare many original works creators into clamping down in fandom to prevent such a thing like the Lexicon case from happening to them (JKR and WB may be able to afford expensive, high flying lawyers, but most can't), but at the same time, it's likely not much will change. Aside from whether or not money will be lost or made or whathaveyou, the fact remains that rearranging someone's entire works is not a derivative work. It's just rearranging the work into a different order. There is no commentary, no critique, no analysis. It's not fair use. Fair use is very strictly defined (both in Canada and the US) and even critiques and commentary can only quote so much of an original work for its purpose. Same with educational materials. The Lexicon as a website may get away with fair use (even though large chunks of it are just rearranagements of JKRs material) but the Lexicon as a book, with all the "extras" stripped to just a rearrangement of the work as an encyclopaedia, does not at all. I've been watching this case closely and I've even had a few folks in the Harry Potter Fan Group I run here in Canada ask me about their position with regards to the Lexicon case since they have contributed to the website. This is an important case since I run several fan clubs in several different venues and whatever the results, it will affect them. My hope is that WB/JKR will win, I must say, since it's very likely the other result will end up with me having to close my fan clubs/websites/fanzines. Whatever I personally hope for, though, the decision made either way is one that I will have to respect. I don't expect this post to change any minds or even clarify the issue as I see it, but I thought I would put something out there. I do hope that the reasoning behind judgement will be unbiased and fair to all, but I personally feel that there will be a clear winner in the case. It looks as if the case is designed to end up with such a decision. Anyhow, this is long enough. I have been enjoying this list a great deal and I hope the division in the court room doesn't prove to be a division on the fan lists. It is a touchy subject and I know people can get passionate about it. Teri [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 10:47:48 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:47:48 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Prayers For Lexicon Steve and the great debate on Copyright. In-Reply-To: <3F1F1AB12FBD4949990815AE3F1BC268@TeriPC> References: <1208308007.1649.54481.m47@yahoogroups.com> <3F1F1AB12FBD4949990815AE3F1BC268@TeriPC> Message-ID: <4805D954.70708@yahoo.com> Teri Gardner said this On 16/04/2008 16:18: > And 100% of the lawyers I've spoken to believe that > fandom endeavours are copyright infringement by their > very nature. "Fan endeavors" is overly ambiguous. Did these lawyers distinguish between the various types of endeavors, or do they consider everything a copyright infringement? And what legal precedents back up their opinions? I found several of your points interesting, but your post seems to indicate that the major issue lies in how much of the RDR lexicon is merely rearrangement, and how much is original scholarly contribution. But that's not the impression I get from what little I've read of the case. JKR (or at least the press on JKR's behalf) seems to be making much over the impact RDR's lexicon will have on JKR's, but that seems to hinge not on how much original content the RDR lexicon has but on the bare fact of its existence. Yet if original content is really at the crux of the case, and the RDR lexicon is found wanting, it seems to me all RDR would need to do is rework its lexicon to add original content. Then we'd be back in court all over again. You also argue that mere rearrangement of a work constitutes insufficient argument for original contribution. Yet I have on my shelves several gospel harmonies that are nothing more than rearrangements of biblical texts. They are copyright under the assumption that rearrangement in and of itself, even apart from other commentary or analysis, constitutes a scholarly contribution. And, as the author of one of those harmonies, I would disagree with the implication that "mere" rearrangement of texts constitutes insufficient original scholarly contribution to merit copyright protection. > Since there is an exchange of money ... that is against copyright > laws Has this ever been tested in court? Could the argument be made that the exchange of money is for services that are ancillary to the content -- e.g., the cost of maintaining membership rolls, production and mailing of monthly newsletters, or what have you. But then, I may be talking out my posterior. I'd love to see legal precedent, if there is any. > the other books out there ... have been put out with the > blessing of WB and JKR. Is the Internet a publishing medium (I know the legal precedents are still out on this one)? Since JKR has already given her blessing to the electronic edition of the lexicon, what bearing does that have on the case? > and even critiques and commentary can only quote so much > of an original work for its purpose. What's a "quote"? Doesn't it mean mean verbatim reproduction? If instead I'm simply producing a Cliff Notes summary of the HP series without any verbatim citations, does that still constitute a "quote" under copyright law? As I mentioned in a previous post, I have no strong personal feelings on the case. I'm mostly just intellectually curious about the legal issues. I also realize I don't have access to all the details of the case (and as usual, that's where the devil is), so I will be most interested in reading the decision once the case is decided. I do agree that fandom seems to be in for a bit of a rough ride whichever way the case goes. CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 10:48:03 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:48:03 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4805D963.9090209@yahoo.com> dumbledore11214 said On 16/04/2008 09:33: >> Steve has NOT abused his right to play in >> JKR's world. Alla: > Oh sorry then. My opinion that he did, but of course the law may be > interpreted differently, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even look like one. So my opinion is practically worthless here, but I'm simply expressing my opinion on what the law seems to say. As to my personal feelings, I'm ambivalent. I think both sides have legitimate points and -- as fair use always does -- it comes down to a question of where you draw the line trying to balance fair use with the creator's right to protect his creation. And that's nearly always decided case by case. I'm interested to see how the case plays out. A point I raised earlier -- but I don't know if it will be raised in court -- involves the Internet as a publishing medium. Content sites often treat the Net as if it is. If one assumes the Internet is a publishing medium, one could argue that Steve's lexicon has already been published, and with JKR's blessing and encouragement. In that case it boils down to whether an author can control *which* media derivative works can be published in. If JKR has, in effect, already given approbation for the lexicon to be published in one format, then has she given up her right to protest it's publication in another? I would love to see *that* argument presented and considered, but I don't know whether it has or will be. > we do agree that the case may have this effect on fandoms > regardless of whether one think what Steve did was > right or not, yes? Right morally or legally? But yes, we agree. Whether JKR wins or loses, there will be a chilling effect on fandom. If she wins, sites will come down (or not go up) for fear of copyright infringement. If she loses because the judge rules she didn't properly protect her intellectual property, legal heads will become even more paranoid, and you can expect the number of C&D letters to mushroom. Fans will be intimidated into pulling down websites even when the law is on their side. Either way, I think fandom may be in for a rough ride. CJ From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Wed Apr 16 12:37:11 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:37:11 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, Jo (Rowling's girl, through and through) said: >>> I strongly believe that the outpouring of support has to do with the fact that Steve was one of the early, active members of HPfGU and that people remember him fondly. As someone who used to be active myself in the 2002-2004 period, I had several pleasant interactions with him and had a great deal of respect for him. <<< I agree ? this is what makes it all so sad. Whenever it's my turn to send out elfly welcoming messages I go to the members section of HPfGU http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/members? group=sub&xm=1&o=5 to download the list of members. Those early names seem to include so many of the people who have helped make the HP fandom the wonderful place it is. Steve Vander Ark is listed as the 20th member (for context I'm the 2,418th and Jo's the 912th). Jo went on to say: >>> That said, several of the posters have admitted that they have not been following the case and are unaware of the events leading up to this trial. I, OTOH, have been reading everything I could since it first surfaced last autumn and based on what I've learned, I have lost any and all respect I once had for the founder of the Lexicon. I would respectfully suggest that those who support Steve make the effort to fully inform themselves of the background and history of this case. There are a multitude of links, the best of which are through TLC. If you continue to take his side in this matter, fair enough. Personally, I think he is way, way out of line both legally and ethically. <<< I'm starting to see this as four separate (though interlinked) questions. 1) Is the Harry Potter Lexicon useful; and is it the result of much hard, intelligent, and creative work? Yes. I think JKR's incorrect about the level of effort involved in collating the lexicon. I also don't agree with her that "an alphabetical [list] is the laziest way to rearrange and sell [her] work". I think the most useful Harry Potter guide might be a simple concordance. 2) Would a print version of the Harry Potter Lexicon be worthwhile? Yes ? I would / will buy it. 3) Is it a breach of JKR/WB copyright to publish a print copy of the Harry Potter Lexicon? I have no idea. And when the judge says "the fair use doctrine is not clear" it sounds like he's a bit perplexed too. Oh dear. 4) Has Steve behaved badly and lost the support of many Harry Potter fans? Clearly by going against JKR he's alienated most fans. Sadly I may not have the time to follow Jo's suggestion and to read through the TLC links. But it is clear that Steve has gone further than to alienate those fans who would object to anyone standing against JKR, he appears to have done and said things that have turned many fans at the centre of the fandom, his friends, against him. We're no strangers to a schism (bless you, thanks Lemony) in the fandom but it is always very sad. Cheers, Dumbledad. From crookshanks4 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 13:09:24 2008 From: crookshanks4 at yahoo.com (Maria Gromova) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Prayers for Lexicon Steve Message-ID: <408447.86969.qm@web62214.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Honestly, I don't understand authors who forbid fanfiction. Maybe they want to learn mind control and control what their fans think about their books while they're at it!? But then why write a book? Keep your ideas in your head - then they're safe, nobody will interpret them because nobody will KNOW of them in the first place! Because if a person reads an interesting book, he or she will always think what can happen with the characters or how something works or looks if it's unclear. This is how the human mind is. I, for example, was writing fanfiction before I even KNEW it is called fanfiction, it was when I was a child and computers were giant things occupying a whole room! Maria. --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kempermentor at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 14:08:52 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:08:52 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: <4805D963.9090209@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > Alla: > > we do agree that the case may have this effect on fandoms > > regardless of whether one think what Steve did was > > right or not, yes? > CJ: > Right morally or legally? But yes, we agree. Whether JKR wins or > loses, there will be a chilling effect on fandom. > If she wins, sites will come > down (or not go up) for fear of copyright infringement. If she loses > because the judge rules she didn't properly protect her intellectual > property, legal heads will become even more paranoid, and you can > expect the number of C&D letters to mushroom. Fans will be > intimidated into pulling down websites > even when the law is on their side. > Either way, I think fandom may be in for a rough ride. Kemper now: That's wrong. If she wins sites will remain up, future fans of other works will write fanfic, create fan art, establish fan groups, go to conventions, etc. It is already established that Original creators have defined how they are willing or unwilling to grant fans indulgences. Many upcoming writers (I imagine) would love to have fans of their work starting anything to do with their original work. Writers (artists) want/need a fan base: to spread word, to increase sales, to quit their day job. This is why most writers allow for fan indulgence. Why piss off your fans? They are a writer's pita and hummus. Kemper From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 16 14:13:05 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:13:05 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: <4805D963.9090209@yahoo.com> Message-ID: CJ: If she wins, sites will come > down (or not go up) for fear of copyright infringement. Magpie: I don't see why. There was no problem until they decided to publish a book about the thing for money. She didn't go after the Lexicon's website. She already would go after something that presented the books for free online, though, so I don't see a big change there. CJ: If she loses > because the judge rules she didn't properly protect her intellectual > property, legal heads will become even more paranoid, and you can expect > the number of C&D letters to mushroom. Fans will be intimidated into > pulling down websites even when the law is on their side. Magpie: I don't think you have to protect your copyright. I believe it's trademark that you have to protect or lose. I'm not a lawyer either, but it just doesn't seem like JKR can be said to have given away anything by not going after a website that didn't make money. Especially when SVA has written e-mails to Scholastic in the past stating that he didn't consider he had any right to publish an encyclopedia and in fact he considered the Lexicon an intentionally deterrant to anybody doing so because that was JKR's right. -m From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 16 15:40:39 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:40:39 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: <48053B0B.2020501@yahoo.com> References: <48053B0B.2020501@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000f01c89fd8$3973ecb0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> I can only say this, not as a student of law but as someone who would like to see the world play nice: Re marketing threat-- I doubt it sincerely! If an author has created something that people feel is worth exploring, IMHO, no companion or reference book in the world is going to impact that author's market; if anything, it could make people want to read that author more to see the full context of the material. And if the author is as good as J.K. Rowling and people have already read and absorbed her books, anything else she writes on the subject is a "Must have," again IMHO. I can't help thinking/feeling/believing that if an author is truly secure in his/her work (which Ms. Rowling should be considering the incredibly strong fan base), the fact that people want to sit down and devote time to putting together a "people's Lexicon," so to speak, should be thought of as a compliment. And then, if that author decided to create her own encyclopedia, knowing of that strong and large fan base, he/she should be able to rest easy that this "official" encyclopedia would be snapped up in a heartbeat by that large, strong fandom. After all, it's another Official Rowling book essential to complete one's collection and essential to gleaning more background into the HP material as only Jo can see it and is sharing in the pages of this Encyclopedia. And if Jo intends for the proceeds to go to charity, so much the better; I don't believe a true fan would pass up havving the book. However, this is not a world where people play nice; this is a world riddled with insecurities and the need to control. The more I read, the more I side with Steve and think he will come out okay. He's hardly going to cut into her market for past or future materials. Joe has that in her pocket for good. :-) Now, off I go to grab some coffee and read more stuff. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 15:42:19 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:42:19 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48061E5B.3010706@yahoo.com> CJ: > Either way, I think fandom may be in for a rough ride. Kemper now: > That's wrong. If she wins sites will remain up, future fans of other > works will write fanfic, create fan art, establish fan groups, go to > conventions, etc. It is already established that Original creators > have defined how they are willing or unwilling to grant fans indulgences. I hope you're right, Rowling has already expressed misgivings about how tolerant she's been. I strongly suspect any fan attempting a site of the scope and breadth of Steve's in the future will have a much harder time gaining her approbation. I suspect many sites up now may feel pressured to re-examine their content. And I wouldn't be surprise if publishers of other popular series start asking their authors to reconsider their own tolerance of fan endeavors. Whichever way the case goes, I just don't see fandom continuing business as usual. > Why piss off your fans? They are a writer's pita and hummus. Because that's what lawyers do best. And in any case we're only talking about an extremely small chunk of the fanbase. Even if every fanfic author, reader and Potter-related website admin out there got a major grump up over JKR's crackdown, I suspect impact on sales would be negligible. I'd bet the vast majority of JKR's fandom has never heard of -- let alone logged into -- an HP site, participated in an HP discussion group, or joined an HP fanclub. They just buy and read the books. And those folk aren't going to care one way or 'tother about this case. CJ: > If she wins, sites will come down (or not go up) for fear > of copyright infringement. Magpie: > I don't see why. There was no problem until they decided > to publish a book about the thing for money. She didn't go > after the Lexicon's website. I hope you're right. But (as I said above) JKR has already expressed her misgivings about her past tolerance for Steve's site. My guess, based on what little I've read, is that she (and/or her publishers) is rethinking her current tolerance. But all we can do is watch and see. Magpie: > I don't think you have to protect your copyright. I > believe it's trademark that you have to protect or lose. Yeah, you're right. I'll admit to misspeaking on that one. However, I think this: Magpie: > but it just doesn't seem like JKR can be said to have > given away anything by not going after a website that > didn't make money. isn't quite right. JKR has already described the emotional ordeal she's gone through in the affair. Now I strongly suspect that was largely for show, and she was coached by her lawyers to ham it up for the judge, but I don't doubt there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. What JKR has given something is her faith and trust in her fandom. She feels violated by the whole affair, and may well begin tightening control just to avoid being violated again in the future. So perhaps she hasn't given anything up legally or financially, but she doesn't talk as if those are the only concerns for her. All of this is just speculation, however. Time is the determiner of all things. CJ From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 16 15:53:22 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:53:22 -0400 Subject: On The Lighter Side RE: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: References: <001a01c89ef4$59cf8440$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: <001001c89fda$02761880$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Steve B]: |Again, I understand wanting to support your favorite author, but | you simply can NOT twist laws in favor of some one you like | and against some one you don't like. Laws need to be | interpreted in a fair and unbiased way, . . . [Lee]: Now, Steve, really! If the MOM can change their laws and rules to suit them, why can't we? Seriously, I agree with you, but I just couldn't help writing that! Cheers, Lee :-) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 16 16:31:50 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:31:50 -0000 Subject: Authors and fans (was: Re: The Fair Use Doctrine) In-Reply-To: <48061E5B.3010706@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > CJ: > > If she wins, sites will come down (or not go up) for fear > > of copyright infringement. > > Magpie: > > I don't see why. There was no problem until they decided > > to publish a book about the thing for money. She didn't go > > after the Lexicon's website. > > I hope you're right. But (as I said above) JKR has already expressed her > misgivings about her past tolerance for Steve's site. My guess, based on > what little I've read, is that she (and/or her publishers) is rethinking > her current tolerance. But all we can do is watch and see. Magpie: Yes, I heard that. And I admit I thought it was a little annoying. Why blame fandom for the fact that somebody tried to infringe on your copyright? It could have just as easily have been somebody who wasn't in fandom who had the idea--Seinfeld didn't do that. She's also mentioned this has stifled her creativity so that she stopped work on her new novel and that she's losing her interest in publishing her own encyclopedia. It just sounds too much like ff.net authors demanding reviews or they won't continue. I'm sorry that she has to go through this hassle, I really am. It's a pain when somebody tries to infringe on your copyright and you have to go after them. But I don't think it's fair to threaten to punish fandom in general for it. Most of fandom had nothing to do with RDR or SVA deciding to publish a book, or whatever relationship JKR had with SVA and the Lexicon. Nowadays creators of things have actually relied more on fansites, not less, because they know an active fandom is a good thing. They also know there are risks in that. Authors aren't usually the ones at the center of things. Usually we're talking about TV shows and things like that--things with more than one creator. Warner Brothers has already been out there tracking stuff down on their own, since they have ownership in the property too (and they've got trademarks). I think we're in a period where people are fighting for territory, but that the fans are a force to be reckoned with. The thing about the Internet, imo, is that it combines a lot of things. Some authors who hate fanfic (the dreaded Lee Goldberg, for instance) consider it all stealing and the Internet as publishing. Personally, I think that ignores the fact that Internet is social and fandom is a conversation. People don't put up stories as just a virtual version of publishing so much as a virtual version of passing their stories around fandom to talk about the characters and the stories amongst other fans. HP happened to explode at the same time as all this, and the Internet has made it very different from other fandoms. The creators are suddenly shoved up against this stuff. And also, fans have more access to each other--if Warner Brothers tries to shut down some teenager in Poland, that teenager might suddenly have a dozen attorneys from all over the world defending her. Fans enjoy talking about their canon and telling stories about it, and naturally they're going to be annoyed if somebody tries to seriously interfere with that and not see why somebody else should have the right to do that just because they use the Internet to do it (and that's where they can actually find people who share their interest). > Magpie: > > but it just doesn't seem like JKR can be said to have > > given away anything by not going after a website that > > didn't make money. CJ: > > isn't quite right. JKR has already described the emotional ordeal she's > gone through in the affair. Now I strongly suspect that was largely for > show, and she was coached by her lawyers to ham it up for the judge, but > I don't doubt there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. What JKR has > given something is her faith and trust in her fandom. She feels violated > by the whole affair, and may well begin tightening control just to avoid > being violated again in the future. So perhaps she hasn't given anything > up legally or financially, but she doesn't talk as if those are the only > concerns for her. Magpie: Yeah, but that's emotional, and any creator or celebrity is in danger of that sort of thing if they get personally involved with strangers they meet as fans, imo. Everyone always hears references to the Zimmer Bradley story, which is complicated iirc, but had to do with her working with a fan and then the fan sueing her for stealing her ideas--something like that. (Perhaps MZB and the fan both felt violated.) But how does one trust "fandom?" Fandom is made up of thousands and thousands of people. Not all of whom are there to be fans of the creator personally (many writers wind up talking to fans on boards or reading them and seeing perfectly well that fans are vocal in their critiques). In this case, she had a sort of personal relationship with SVA. Perhaps it's jarring that a guy who presented himself as a huge fan of her personally, is publishing this book. (Personally why I'm much more comfortable being a fan of the fictional people and wanting no personal relationship--real or imagined--with the author.) But it still just seems like...what are you going to do? It's a copyright issue. From what I've heard from one lawyer SVA's contract actually leaves him open to being sued by RDR when it's all over, should they choose to do so. But if JKR feels like she gave away her trust too easily, what's to do? Must that mean authors should be like Anne Rice and restrict all fanfic (and yell at anybody giving her bad reviews on Amazon) and become disliked? Or just not form any personal relationships with specific fans because those relationships are fraught with peril? That singer Selena got murdered by a fan she encouraged and then disappointed. Encouraging somebody who so wants to bond with you that way is potentially dangerous. Or maybe just not expect too much back from fandom? Because that's often where the shoving match starts. Much of fandom really isn't there for the person behind the work, but the work itself. They don't necessarily feel obligated to be positive about the work or follow directions from the author. In this case I guess the lure of becoming "part of canon" in some way, or making money was more important to SVA than what he seemed to know was JKR's wishes. How would she protect herself from being violated again this way? Not personally validate anybody in it? Fine by me--as I said, I'm a bit creeped out by the "I talked to JKR and that makes me more important and special than other fans!" type of fans. Seems like for the most part she's turned a blind eye rather than put trust in us--which I think is a great thing to do. My own feeling, as I said, is just that the internet has unfortunately jammed private worlds together so now the author can see people discussing and playing around with her books where in the past this stuff would be going on, but she would have little way of coming across it (unless somebody sent her a 'zine or something). We just have to, imo, work out a compromise where we don't bother each other or infringe on each other's space. Like, for me I think the author has no business telling me what I can say to other people about her book, or about things she's said, even if that came down to me imagining a story with the characters and letting them read it. Otoh, I have no business publishing a book for money using material that belongs to her, that she created. (I realize that some people put the line between those two things in a different place.) -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 17:45:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:45:25 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: <4805D963.9090209@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee wrtoe: > Right morally or legally? But yes, we agree. Whether JKR wins or loses, there will be a chilling effect on fandom. If she wins, sites will come down (or not go up) for fear of copyright infringement. If she loses because the judge rules she didn't properly protect her intellectual property, legal heads will become even more paranoid, and you can expect the number of C&D letters to mushroom. Fans will be intimidated into pulling down websites even when the law is on their side. > > Either way, I think fandom may be in for a rough ride. Carol responds: I agree that fandom is in for a rough ride, but I don't think that if JKR loses, it will be because she didn't protect her intellectual property. I think it will be because the printed Lexicon qualifies as a scholarly work and is allowable under the Fair Use doctrine. I do think that the fact that it previously appeared on the Internet, with JKR's blessing, will work against her case. As I pointed out earlier, the mere fact that the published version is intended to make money will not necessarily work against it, and the fact that it does *not* make original use of her work (other than some degree of commentary and analysis) will actually help the Lexicon's case. Now if Steve had written and attempted to publish "The Life and Times of Severus Snape" or "Severus Snape and the Four Marauders," he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. And even the percentage of allowed quoted material varies, depending on the type of book involved. Naturally, an "encyclopedia" or other reference work will have more quoted material than an analysis of JKR's alchemical symbolism or the motivations of her characters. (Fanfic, which involves wholesale use of JKR's characters and their world in ways that she never imagined or intended, is a whole 'nother ballgame and is not really relevant here, though without question, fan works of any kind will be affected.) So the question is whether the Lexicon counts as scholarly research (as a book of literary criticism--or a concordance--undoubtedly would), and how much quoted (or summarized or paraphrased) material should be allowed in such a work. JKR's claim that the Lexicon and the trial have made it impossible for her to work on her own encyclopedia is irrelevant. Her claim that the Lexicon makes it unnecessary to read her books is, I think, untenable. The Lexicon is not Cliff's Notes, which abridges the plot in chronological order, with comments on the characters and symbolism. No student is going to read the Lexicon and write a book report or an essay purporting to analyze the motivation or development of JKR's characters based on the fictional/factual portions of the Lexicon (and if they use the essays without citing them, that *is* plagiarism). The Lexicon exists to provide information *about* the HP books. The HP books exist to provide entertainment. They are not interchangeable, and they are not in conflict. And, as I've said before, her own unwritten encyclopedia, as described in a recent interview, is completely different from the Lexicon, not only because it would contain information that Steve V. has no access to but because of the arrangement. As for JKR's claim that the work Steve did wasn't work at all because she had done the work of writing the books, what can I say except that she has evidently never searched through her own books for quotations or she would know how time-consuming that is. Steve V. is saving other readers that labor by telling them where to find the quotations. Nevertheless, it's still necessary for the reader to see the quoted or paraphrased material in context and to form his own conclusions. (I've read entries in the Lexicon that I disagree with. How is that possible if he's only restating what JKR has already said?) Summary and paraphrase also require skill and effort. They are not a lazy or sloppy form of writing. They are difficult (especially summary, which requires separating the essential information from the extraneous details, in essence reducing or condensing the specific to the general). He *has* done work that is not hers. He has made it much easier to find the information *in her books*--exactly as an index does. On another note, what I would really like to see is an annotated edition of JKR's books, one pointing out the inconsistencies and etymologies and literary or mythological allusions, etc., in footnotes). (Anyone who has read "The Annotated Alice" will know the kind of book I have in mind.) But such a book would require the use of JKR's notes and her cooperation, and, given her current state of mind, would almost certainly not be allowed. My concern with the outcome of the case is entirely for scholars who want to write about the works of living authors or works still under copyright. And that includes translations and literary analysis as well as reference works. Of course, the rights of the author should not be infringed upon. Of course, those secondary works (and I am not inventing this term) depend on the primary work (again, I'm not inventing the term) for their very existence. The rights of scholars, teachers, students, book reviewers, and anyone else who wants to write *about* an existing work should also be protected. It's a very different thing from, say, writing a novel about a magical child who attends a boarding school for witches and wizards with characters obviously derived from JKR's works. A Snape by any other name would still be Snape. The same with Dumbledore and Quidditch and Hogwarts and any other recognizable aspects of JKR's world. That's plagiarism. That's stealing. But is a reference work about a work of literature "stealing" even though it's not claiming to be original in the way that a work of fiction does? That's the question. And, as far as I can see, at least with regard to the Lexicon, the answer is no. I really don't see what scholars who use the works of living authors would have to fear if RDR wins the case, but if JKR wins, the whold concept of Fair Use is in jeopardy. As for fanfic, I think it will have its turn in some other case, perhaps involving some other author, and the fanfic writers will lose. The Fair Use doctrine was not designed to protect writers who use another writer's characters and concepts to create their own stories. (No offense intended to the writers of fanfic; I'm merely stating my interpretation of Fair Use, which predates fanfic as we know it.) Certainly, the whole existence of the Internet and the uses to which it can be put makes a rethinking of the concept imperative. I only hope that the doctrine continues to protect the rights of scholars and teachers, which it was designed to protect in the first place. Carol, who thinks that some such lawsuit was inevitable and fearing the worst for everyone from dissertation writers to HPfGu posters From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 18:11:18 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:11:18 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kemper now: > That's wrong. If she wins sites will remain up, future fans of other works will write fanfic, create fan art, establish fan groups, go to conventions, etc. It is already established that Original creators have defined how they are willing or unwilling to grant fans indulgences. > > Many upcoming writers (I imagine) would love to have fans of their work starting anything to do with their original work. Writers (artists) want/need a fan base: to spread word, to increase sales, to quit their day job. This is why most writers allow for fan indulgence. Why piss off your fans? They are a writer's pita and hummus. > Carol responds: I'm confused. How could a win for JKR, who is claiming that the "rearrangement" of her words and ideas is plagiarism (without, IMO, a clear concept of Fair Use and the reasons for its existence) be a victory for those who want to use her ideas (characters and settings) in a way that is *already* unprotected by the Fair Use doctrine? Fanfic has, so far as I can see, no real bearing on the case. She's concerned at the moment with reference works which, she claims, have too little analytical content (a misunderstanding of the concept of a reference work, which is *supposed* to be factual). The only problem I can see is that, if JKR loses, she may think that she's been too generous with her fans and crack down on fanfic, but fanfic isn't protected by fair use in any case. But if she wins, it's a victory for her and WB, not for fans or scholars who may wish to write about her books--or hold fan conventions, which she could argue violate her copyright just like that castle in India a while back. But a victory for Steve V. is a victory for fair use, and surely that's what those of us who make fair use of her works virtually every day by posting on HPfGu should hope for? Expanding the concept of fair use to cover works like the Lexicon can only help, not hurt, writers who want to write about other writers' works. And I'm not talking about plagiarism but about reference works that make an author's work more accessible. *Restricting* fair use, in contrast, will make it more difficult for scholars and teachers to use those works in ways that are now protected but could be in danger from rulings that restrict the quotation and paraphrase and summary of copyrighted works. And, in the long run, that will hurt the authors themselves. It's hard to sell a book if no one dares to review it for fear of being sued by the author. Carol, who thinks that neither conventions nor fansites will be safe if a *reference book* is declared a violation of copyright From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 16 18:31:08 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:31:08 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > My concern with the outcome of the case is entirely for scholars who > want to write about the works of living authors or works still under > copyright. And that includes translations and literary analysis as > well as reference works. Magpie: Are you assuming that as it stands now a Lexicon of any other author's work would not be challenged the same way? I would actually doubt that if I wanted to put together an encyclopedia of a series by some other author that I'd have the right to do it without permission. I can totally see somebody saying that yes, this book is very helpful in the way that it makes the facts in JKR's books easier to find, but you're still not allowed to list things that the copyright holder made up and sell it for profit. If it is a scholarly work, then there's no problem--other books have already been published that work that way. But I don't know whether the interprerative spin the Lexicon sometimes puts on things necessarily counts enough to make it scholarly. So that would make it derivative rather than transformative, and so potentially infringing on the copyright. That there's definite value in presenting the information this way in a handy volume doesn't make it fair use. And if it is scholarly, they'd have to show that they didn't take more of the copyrighted material than absolutely necessary for their scholarly work. There certainly is a lot of work that goes in to rearranging the facts to make this reference book, but I don't know whether it's the kind of work that makes it fair use. Carol: The rights of scholars, > teachers, students, book reviewers, and anyone else who wants to write > *about* an existing work should also be protected. Magpie: But they're not necessarily being unprotected by this case. If this isn't one of these things that's taken just enough of the original as it needs and no more then there's a problem. She's not challenging the right of someone to write about her existing work, she's challenging that this *is* writing *about* her existing work rather than rearranging it and adding little to it. (According to her side what's added is a mishmash of "facetious remarks", etymologies, and common knowledge.) It is, of course, very different from writing a novel about her characters--trying to publish a fanfic. But it's also very different than publishing a book of essays about different aspects of the book or a book review or writing a paper on it. The Seinfeld Aptitude Test also took fictional facts and repackaged them into a handy format-- and it was ruled as infringement. Carol: > But is a reference work about a work of literature "stealing" even > though it's not claiming to be original in the way that a work of > fiction does? That's the question. And, as far as I can see, at least > with regard to the Lexicon, the answer is no. Magpie: I don't think they're considering it "stealing" in the sense that anybody is saying that the Lexicon is claiming to have made up any of these characters. But then, nor does fanfic claim to do that. The problem is that she feels he's repackaging a section of her work (the part of her work that involved creating all these fictional things) and selling it and making money off it. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 16 18:43:45 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:43:45 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Kemper now: > > That's wrong. If she wins sites will remain up, future fans of > other works will write fanfic, create fan art, establish fan groups, > go to conventions, etc. It is already established that Original > creators have defined how they are willing or unwilling to grant fans > indulgences. > > > > Many upcoming writers (I imagine) would love to have fans of their > work starting anything to do with their original work. Writers > (artists) want/need a fan base: to spread word, to increase sales, to > quit their day job. This is why most writers allow for fan > indulgence. Why piss off your fans? They are a writer's pita and > hummus. > > > Carol responds: > > I'm confused. How could a win for JKR, who is claiming that the > "rearrangement" of her words and ideas is plagiarism (without, IMO, a > clear concept of Fair Use and the reasons for its existence) be a > victory for those who want to use her ideas (characters and settings) > in a way that is *already* unprotected by the Fair Use doctrine? Magpie: I think a victory for JKR would have little effect on fandom either way. An encyclopedia isn't transformative enough to really apply to a lot of the stuff fandom does. If RDR wins, it could be bad for fandom if the reason for winning is that JKR "approved" of the book by approving of the Internet site (as opposed to them proving that this particular book was fair use). That would force authors to be more careful about "approving" of things accidentally that way. They would have to start worrying about losing control of things the way they don't now. -m From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 20:04:43 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:04:43 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48065BDB.40009@yahoo.com> sistermagpie: > if the reason for winning is that JKR "approved" of ... > the Internet site (as opposed to them proving that this > particular book was fair use). That would force authors to > be more careful about "approving" of things accidentally > that way. I have no idea what legal legs JKR's past endorsement of Steve's site has. Does her awarding it site of the year (or whatever) constitute permission to publish? I would tend to think that would be a very difficult argument to make. And thus any authorial concern to that effect would be more three parts paranoia than legal precedent. Now that's not to say authors can't be paranoid and hire enough lawyers to make things rough for website owners anyway. But I'd be surprised if any judge would mistake an authorial "attaboy" for a contract to publish. Carol: > I don't think that if JKR loses, it will be because she > didn't protect her intellectual property. Someone already pointed out my faux pas here -- it's trademark, not copyright, that you can lose by failing to defend it. In any case, I think I just argued against myself above. I earlier raised the question of whether JKR's approval of the website weakens her disapproval of the RDR version. Now I'm thinking I would be surprised to hear a judge take her previous approbation as implicit permission to publish. But whether it would factor in in other ways -- well, what do *I* know about copyright law? Carol: > And even the percentage of allowed quoted material varies, > depending on the type of book involved. But what constitutes "quoted" material? Is it strictly verbatim reproduction, or does it include paraphrase and summary as well? If someone (oh, say Steve, or RDR) wanted to publish something (say, maybe, a lexicon) that summarizes the life of a fictional character (perhaps Harry Potter) under an entry called "Potter, Harry James", without actually reproducing any relevant text verbatim, does that constitute for legal purposes a "quotation"? Carol: > JKR's claim that the Lexicon and the trial have made it > impossible for her to work on her own encyclopedia is > irrelevant. I would agree. If the RDR lexicon is protected under fair use, then any impact it might have on JKR's future projects are not an issue. Carol: > As for JKR's claim that the work Steve did wasn't work at > all because she had done the work of writing the books... > Summary and paraphrase also require skill and effort. As I mentioned in a previous post, I am the author of a harmony of the gospels (don't bother looking for it in stores; it was a limited run about twenty years ago), which does nothing more than rearrange and republish pre-existing material. I would bristle a bit at the suggestion (implied in JKR's argument) that my scholarly efforts were minimal, unoriginal and/or not worthy of protection in their own right. So I'm in full agreement with you here. Magpie: > Yes, I heard that. And I admit I thought it was a little > annoying. Why blame fandom for the fact that somebody > tried to infringe on your copyright? I agree, but I'm not unsympathetic to JKR's side. Since there's no way to predict when or whether any particular fan endeavor will suddenly explode into a legal case, from JKR's and her publisher's perspective, the only solution is to be more restrictive of everything. Yes, it's unfair to fandom in general, but what other solution is there? Magpie: > From what I've heard from one lawyer SVA's contract > actually leaves him open to being sued by RDR when it's all over, Now THAT would strike me as a rotten thing to do. After all, RDR approached Steve (from what I understand) and convinced him to change his mind about publishing. To turn around and then sue Steve would be a dirty trick all around, even if legally allowable. That's when I would really start feeling sorry for Steve. Sorry, gotta go. My daughter's sick and I need to sit up with her. CJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 21:07:55 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:07:55 -0000 Subject: On The Lighter Side ... RE: What's Leaky up to? In-Reply-To: <001001c89fda$02761880$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > [Steve B]: > |Again, I understand wanting to support your favorite author, > | but you simply can NOT twist laws in favor of some one you > | like and against some one you don't like. Laws need to be > | interpreted in a fair and unbiased way, . . . > > [Lee]: > Now, Steve, really! If the MOM can change their laws and > rules to suit them, why can't we? > > Seriously, I agree with you, but I just couldn't help writing > that! > > Cheers, > > Lee :-) > bboyminn: Keep in mind that I am neither for SteveV nor against him, neither am I for JKR or against her. What I am for is a fair and reasonable interpretations of the law, and I trust the judge to make that fair ruling (especially after recent news reports publishing comments made by the judge). However, I have seen, in some cases in other groups, 'Fans' making very emotional but not very rational arguments in favor of JKR. Again, emotion and adoration can't come into play, it must be decided on a perception and interpretation of the facts. I've admitted I'm much too far away from it all to know for sure. But, in general, 'reference works' have previously been allowed. But admittedly there are probably cases of 'reference works' not being allowed. It depends on the specific content and context. Which as I've said, being so far removed, I can't really know. But I have seen the Lexicon (on-line) and I'm not convinced it goes too far. In a recent statement, the judge advised the parties to come to a settlement, and reminded them that case law could send the verdict either way. There is no clear 'wronged party' at this point. Since either side has roughly equal chances of winning or losing, it is in everyone's interest to settle. My personally opinion is that JKR and SteveV are just along for the ride. They are forced by existing contracts and commitments to defend their postion, when I'm sure they would much rather sit down to tea and have a good conversation. I'm convinced this is lawyers vs lawyers and corporations vs corporations, and SteveV and JKR are just being dragged along in the wake. Though I do admit that JKR does not want this book published. I also concede that SteveV only went along with this because he was assured that it fell well within the bounds of 'fair use'. I think the best settlement would be for JKR to personally buy the on-line Lexicon including all existing information and all future information. And that she pay SteveV a reasonable sum for the site and a small sum of money to keep in running. Further, Warner buys the Lexicon Book from RDR for their expenses plus a small profit. Certainly nothing near what the publishing rights worth, but enough so that RDR can come out of this with something in their pocket and a degree of saved face. Next, and this might be the difficult part, JKR hires SteveV and his current knowledge and lets him compile the data portion of her next Official Lexicon, while she concentrates on the more personal and intimate aspects of the book. I can picture the book being divided into two sections, old compiled data in a very encyclopedia form, and a 'new' section more in the form of written word about backstories and characters, and insight that only JKR could know. JKR stops the publication of the existing Lexicon, she gains control over all the information contain in the present and future Lexicon. She can stipulate what will and will not be found there, and when it will or will not be found there. RDR, if they are smart, will take their small profit and walk away. They can try and win, but Warner has unlimited resources and can keep them in court for decades. But financially that benefits no one. The far more economical stance for all is to settle and walk away, wiser and richer for all. I'm convinced a mutually benevolent settlement will allow everyone to walk away satisfied friends. But if this suit continues, it will be a fracture in the HP community that will never fully heal. EVERYONE will walk away from this with hard feelings and ill-will, and that serves no one. Hey...I'm just saying... steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 02:58:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:58:25 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: <48065BDB.40009@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee wrote: > But what constitutes "quoted" material? Is it strictly verbatim reproduction, or does it include paraphrase and summary as well? If someone (oh, say Steve, or RDR) wanted to publish something (say, maybe, a lexicon) that summarizes the life of a fictional character (perhaps Harry Potter) under an entry called "Potter, Harry James", without actually reproducing any relevant text verbatim, does that constitute for legal purposes a "quotation"? Carol responds: It took me awhile to find an authoritative answer to this question, but here it is from "the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing," second edition (MLA being the Modern Language Association): Like verbatim copying, close paraphrasing of protected expression can constitute copyright infringement if the borrowing does not meet the criteria for fair use, The ideas contained in a work, though, in contrast to the original expression, may be freely used without risk of copyright infringement" (21.1.13, p. 44). Of course, use of other people's ideas without citing your source is plagiarism, but plagiarism, again according to MLA, "is a moral and ethical offense rather than a legal one" (6.1, p. 151). It can get you expelled or ruin you in academia, but thoughts and ideas aren't protected by copyright. (I have no idea how all this relates to fanfic, especially since the amount of verbatim text/close paraphrase used is only one of the "factors" for judging fair use; I'm talking here only about the Lexicon. Is it a "derivative" work based on the original work, in which case the right to prepare or authorize it belongs to the owner of the copyright, JKR? Or is it a "transformative" work that meets the four Fair Use criteria ("factors") that I've already cited? Without question, RDR should have sought permission in the first place and worked with JKr to make the publication of the Lexicon acceptable to her simply as a matter of courtesy and to avoid a lawsuit. But some types of books and articles fall under "fair use" even without the permission of the copyright holder, and the Lexicon could be one of them. Step 1 for JKR should be to stop worrying about how much work (hers or his) has gone into compiling the Lexicon, how it's affected her emotional state, and all other irrelevancies. Step 2 is to familiarize herself with copyright law, especially the Fair Use doctrine, and understand how copyright violation differs from plagiarism. And step 3 should be to have someone do a computerized comparison of the Lexicon (print version) to her books and see what percentage of the text falls under "verbatim copying" and "close paraphrase." As for summary, ain't nothin' she can do about it because it's not a violation of copyright, any more than "transformative" work (including analysis) is. In short, as JKR's characters are always telling each other, she needs to get a grip. (And, much as I pity Steve V., I don't think that crying on the witness stand will help him, either.) Carol, who has had the relevant information on her desk all this time and never realized it till today From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Apr 17 03:28:33 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:28:33 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol responds: > Step 1 for JKR should be to stop worrying about how much work (hers or > his) has gone into compiling the Lexicon, how it's affected her > emotional state, and all other irrelevancies. Step 2 is to familiarize > herself with copyright law, especially the Fair Use doctrine, and > understand how copyright violation differs from plagiarism. And step 3 > should be to have someone do a computerized comparison of the Lexicon > (print version) to her books and see what percentage of the text falls > under "verbatim copying" and "close paraphrase." Magpie: I believe she (or those representing her) has done the last two. Her side's got expert witnesses in copyright and have also gone through the book for this. There's a pie chart made by her side--probably spinning it as close their position as possible--but they have gone through the work. She's not making the argument--though her lawyer obviously wanted to put some drama on the stand with all the irrelevent stuff about hard work, sloppy work, writer's block etc. Not sure what that was in aid of, since there's no jury to make feel sorry for anyone. From what I've heard her legal team has been very well-prepared--much more so than RDR's who has put people on the stand saying they don't remember things and also pulled out e-mails where SVA contradicted his own position. -m From emily_scarface at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 02:57:30 2008 From: emily_scarface at yahoo.com (emily_scarface) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:57:30 -0000 Subject: Hello Everybody! Message-ID: Hi, Good day! I'm emily, and I'm new here, I think this group is nice and informative, Hope to catch up with you sometime..;p powered by: UGotBling.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at comcast.net Thu Apr 17 04:59:52 2008 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:59:52 -0000 Subject: What's Leaky up to? (was Re: Prayers For Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" wrote: Those early names > seem to include so many of the people who have helped make the HP > fandom the wonderful place it is. Steve Vander Ark is listed as the > 20th member (for context I'm the 2,418th and Jo's the 912th). Wow, am I really in the first 1,000 members? I remember thinking that the group was so huge when I first joined and that I was so late to the party that most of the fun was probably over (little did I know, LOL). Thanks for including this little bit of ancient history, Tim. I guess it's time to stop thinking of myself as a newbie :-D. Jo S., the (relatively) ancient From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 15:08:04 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:08:04 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] On The Lighter Side ... RE: What's Leaky up to? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480767D4.3080007@yahoo.com> Steve said On 17/04/2008 05:07: > My personally opinion is that JKR and SteveV are just along > for the ride. I think you're partly right in this. Though I think JKR is a willing passenger who is feeling her creation threatened. I suspect Steve is more an unwilling participant than she. > I think the best settlement would be for JKR to personally > buy the on-line Lexicon including all existing information > and all future information. Problem is Steve doesn't own a lot of the site's content. Much of the critique and analysis on the site was user-produced and contributed. Either JKR and her lawyers would have to negotiate individually with each and every contributor, or Steve would have to strip out all the user-contributed stuff; what JKR would end up with in that case is a rather emaciated rendition of the current site. I suspect that would, in effect, kill it.. --CJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 15:26:31 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:26:31 -0000 Subject: On The Lighter Side ... RE: What's Leaky up to? In-Reply-To: <480767D4.3080007@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > Steve said On 17/04/2008 05:07: > ... > > > I think the best settlement would be for JKR to personally > > buy the on-line Lexicon including all existing information > > and all future information. > > Problem is Steve doesn't own a lot of the site's content. > Much of the critique and analysis on the site was user- > produced and contributed. > > Either JKR and her lawyers would have to negotiate > individually with each and every contributor, or Steve would > have to strip out all the user-contributed stuff; what JKR > would end up with in that case is a rather emaciated > rendition of the current site. I suspect that would, in > effect, kill it.. > > --CJ > bboyminn: Not necessarily, when people submitted their essays...etc... to the site, they did so with the intend that it be published on that site. That constitutes permission. Now that permission does not transfer over to the book unless, of course, they included, as I did, full unlimited permission to use my essay in any and all publishing mediums. I retained my rights, while transferring unlimited right to Steve Vander Ark. But the fact remains, if you submitted your writing to the site, that constitutes permission for the site to use it on that site though not necessarily permission to use the information in other publishing mediums. Consequently that permission to publish on the site would transfer to JKR. The website itself remains unchanged, it is merely a transfer of ownership of the site, and while a certain amount of the site is user generated, I think it is a very small portion, and a portion that is not likely to be found in the printed book. So, I can see no conflicts. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Apr 17 16:27:50 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:27:50 -0000 Subject: On The Lighter Side ... RE: What's Leaky up to? In-Reply-To: <480767D4.3080007@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Steve said On 17/04/2008 05:07: > > My personally opinion is that JKR and SteveV are just along > > for the ride. CJ: > I think you're partly right in this. Though I think JKR is a willing > passenger who is feeling her creation threatened. I suspect Steve is > more an unwilling participant than she. Magpie: I have heard people say that they thought when the judge referred to lawyers pushing things along he mean the Stanford people, who see the case as a way to revise copyright law even though that agenda might not always be in the best interests of their clients. JKR seems to mostly just want to stop the book from being published. It's possible there was some attempt to settle that didn't work already. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 16:46:11 2008 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:46:11 -0000 Subject: The Court Case - it breaks my heart Message-ID: I have been busy with Muggle world things and not following all the post about the case. I get new alerts and got this one today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2008-04-15- harrypottertrial_N.htm?csp=34 It just breaks my heart to see this happening to two people who otherwise were on good terms and involved in a fun thing. Steve said the publisher pushed him, and I think that is probably true, because the publisher would want to make a lot of money. On the other side, Rowling is backed by WB. I can tell you about them!! They are ruthless. They will stop at nothing to distroy the little guy. No one can go against WB and live. I talked to an attorney over something with them myself. And the attorney told me that 'they are bigger, have more money and will distory you'. Most people I know involved in anyway with HP, fear WB, and rightly so. They will not stop, period. I think it is too bad that Steve didn't just go to Jo and say, "can we do this together". He has complied the information, but it was her stuff, so they should have published it together. I think the main problem here are the publisher on Steve's side and WB on Rowlings. It just breaks my heart what is happening to the PEOPLE involved in this battle between corporations. Steve will need more than a prayer. Even God is afraid of WB. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 19:02:04 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:02:04 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > Step 1 for JKR should be to stop worrying about how much work (hers or his) has gone into compiling the Lexicon, how it's affected her emotional state, and all other irrelevancies. Step 2 is to familiarize herself with copyright law, especially the Fair Use doctrine, and understand how copyright violation differs from plagiarism. And step 3 should be to have someone do a computerized comparison of the Lexicon (print version) to her books and see what percentage of the text falls under "verbatim copying" and "close paraphrase." Magpie responded: > I believe she (or those representing her) has done the last two. Her side's got expert witnesses in copyright and have also gone through the book for this. There's a pie chart made by her side--probably spinning it as close their position as possible--but they have gone through the work. She's not making the argument--though her lawyer obviously wanted to put some drama on the stand with all the irrelevent stuff about hard work, sloppy work, writer's block etc. Not sure what that was in aid of, since there's no jury to make feel sorry for anyone. From what I've heard her legal team has been very well-prepared--much more so than RDR's who has put people on the stand saying they don't remember things and also pulled out e-mails where SVA contradicted his own position. Carol responds: Well, given the relative ability to pay for expert lawyers, it's not surprising that JKR's team is better prepared. However, from what I read today, the judge does see the need for a work like the Lexicon to help readers sort out JKR's characters (he's not buying that it substitutes for a reading of the books, as JKR maintains) and he's advising them to settle out of court to avoid a painful, expensive, and time-consuming string of litigation and appeals. (He compared it to the long drawn-out lawsuits in Dickens's "Bleak House,") More power to the judge, and I hope they listen. http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/rowling-makes-fiery-return-to-stand/2008/04/17/1208025322650.html?page=2 BTW, I don't think that a pie chart would prove much considering that it could easily be faked or slanted. What's required is a close examination of several randomly selected passages to see how much is JKR's and how much is careful paraphrase (meaning that JKR's own wording is not accidentally picked without quotation marks), summary, and analysis. Carol, who still thinks that JKR herself needs to be better informed and less emotional and that the lawyers should stop coaching her to play the victim From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Apr 17 19:24:06 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:24:06 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol responds: > > Well, given the relative ability to pay for expert lawyers, it's not > surprising that JKR's team is better prepared. Magpie: Actually, what I heard was that RDR's lawyer was doing more poorly than he should be given his own resume. This was a lawyer's opinion-- obviously I can't really say for myself because I don't know about trials--but he was described as making some basic mistakes that were surprising. Like letting their own witnesses blame the defendent or putting unprepared people on the stand or asking too many questions to which he didn't know the answer. Carol: (He compared it > to the long drawn-out lawsuits in Dickens's "Bleak House,") More power > to the judge, and I hope they listen. > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/rowling-makes-fiery-return-to- stand/2008/04/17/1208025322650.html?page=2 Magpie: It's possibly, too, that he's referring to the Stanford group who some feel have an agenda outside of what's best for RDR. But I think they should settle too. I've heard rumors there have been some attempts--but of course I don't know. Carol: > Carol, who still thinks that JKR herself needs to be better informed > and less emotional and that the lawyers should stop coaching her to > play the victim Magpie: I don't think we really have any way of knowing how informed she is or not. (I would guess probably more than I am, but that's me!) I doubt my own ability to fully understand copyright law even when I listen to it explained to me. But yeah, I don't know why there's time spent on things that seem irrelevent like whether or not somebody would read the Lexicon for entertainment--however, that gave JKR another chance to assert herself as the author: "There are funny things on that site and I wrote them." Whether or not the Lexicon book is poorly done in her opinion isn't relevent either, or whether it's hard for her to write her novel or makes her not want to write her own encyclopedia. But her case doesn't seem ill-informed to me in general or frivolous. I think there's a grey area here rather than a lack of understanding on either side. The pie chart seems central to what they're trying to prove, whether it's slanted one way or the other. That's still the meat of what they're talking about. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 19:28:06 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:28:06 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > Well, given the relative ability to pay for expert lawyers, it's not > surprising that JKR's team is better prepared. Alla: Stanford is supposed to be a big name, no? I would think that even if they took this case for low or no fee, they would be superbly prepared especially if they are doing it for "cause" as they see it. Carol: However, from what I > read today, the judge does see the need for a work like the Lexicon to > help readers sort out JKR's characters (he's not buying that it > substitutes for a reading of the books, as JKR maintains) and he's > advising them to settle out of court to avoid a painful, expensive, > and time-consuming string of litigation and appeals. (He compared it > to the long drawn-out lawsuits in Dickens's "Bleak House,") More power > to the judge, and I hope they listen. > > http://www.smh.com.au/news/books/rowling-makes-fiery-return-to- stand/2008/04/17/1208025322650.html?page=2 Alla: The thing is judges, and that I can tell you from real first hand experience urge you to settle ALL the time. In my area of law judges just flat out do not want to write decisions. They scream how much they hate that the system is so overburdened, etc, etc, but if they urge you to settle that really really means nothing whatsoever as to the merits of the case,PERIOD. Any party can win or lose. I saw comments from somebody who claims to be criminal lawyer on Leaky and I say claims to be only because I do not know this person in RL, and she said that what was truly unusual is that in this case judge put this urge to settle on the record, while it would usually happen in chambers and it is absolutely true. I am sure that this judge is quite fine with writing the decision, etc, just saying that him urging to settle IMO means that he feels that any party can win and nothing more. Personally, I am glad that trial is done and they only settled some minor parts of the lawsuit, not that they cannot settle at any time before judge writes a decision and this can take months and months, waiting part I mean, if my experience in completely different area of law means something. Maybe federal judges are less overburdened than civil court judges ( I had never had a case in federal court) and especially in such high profile case the decision will be out there faster. Alla From n2fgc at arrl.net Thu Apr 17 20:29:03 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:29:03 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201c8a0c9$adc1f7a0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | Carol, who still thinks that JKR herself needs to be better informed | and less emotional and that the lawyers should stop coaching her to | play the victim [Lee]: Okay, gonna stick my foot in deep here. JKR *is* emotional. I say that because there have been past references to depression and her open revelations about suicidal thoughts after the break-up of her first marriage, coupled with her anxiety attacks when dealing with crowds (I remember that from A&E but don't ask for exact quotes). In other words, I get the feeling that she likes to have control over her environment and, when that control and security are compromised, she is adversely affected. Now, here, in her opinion, (possibly), things are not secure and not within her ability to control, so "playing the victim" is easy. I get the impression from some things she's said in interviews that she's a perfectionist. Yes, there are inconsistencies and stuff but her deep desire to have the writing come out right would fall into the perfectionist thing. And so, being a perfectionist and seeing what she considers imperfect is a horror to her. The fact that a fan didn't wait for her "Scottish Book" and went ahead with the Lexicon is also a horror as it cuts into her control of the Potterverse, in her thinking, (possibly). This is all conjecture and speculation and my opinion, but it's something to consider...ya think? Maybe? Lee (Taking off Amateur Psychologist Hat) :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 20:47:38 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:47:38 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: <001201c8a0c9$adc1f7a0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: > [Lee]: > Okay, gonna stick my foot in deep here. JKR *is* emotional. I say that > because there have been past references to depression and her open > revelations about suicidal thoughts after the break-up of her first > marriage, coupled with her anxiety attacks when dealing with crowds (I > remember that from A&E but don't ask for exact quotes). In other words, I > get the feeling that she likes to have control over her environment and, > when that control and security are compromised, she is adversely affected. > > Now, here, in her opinion, (possibly), things are not secure and not within > her ability to control, so "playing the victim" is easy. I get the > impression from some things she's said in interviews that she's a > perfectionist. Yes, there are inconsistencies and stuff but her deep desire > to have the writing come out right would fall into the perfectionist thing. > And so, being a perfectionist and seeing what she considers imperfect is a > horror to her. The fact that a fan didn't wait for her "Scottish Book" and > went ahead with the Lexicon is also a horror as it cuts into her control of > the Potterverse, in her thinking, (possibly). > > This is all conjecture and speculation and my opinion, but it's something to > consider...ya think? Maybe? > > Lee (Taking off Amateur Psychologist Hat) :-) Alla: And you could be absolutely right of course, your conjecture and speculation could be right on point. The thing is though if Lexicon book is judged and found wanting in a sense of infringing on JKR's copyright then she IS a victim, isn't she? She then IMO is a victim in a sense that somebody is making money off her work. And IMO it has nothing to do with her being emotional, controlling ( and as I said you could be absolutely right) or any other qualities of her character. Does it make sense? I just do not get the she should stop playing the victim part of Carol's remark. Of course she is not a victim in a sense that her last money is being stolen, or that she is being physically hurt (although it must be upsetting at least emotionally), but I still do not see how if she truly feels that she is being taken advantage of, what is she playing of. Now of course the emotional remarks have nothing to do with the issues of the case and judge will not pay attention to them I am sure, just as Steve's tears, etc, but at least I can believe that she is truly upset, even if lawyer told her to play it for all it is worth. And that I dislike if it is so. Alla. From jmmears at comcast.net Thu Apr 17 21:35:30 2008 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:35:30 -0000 Subject: The Court Case - it breaks my heart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I think it is too bad that Steve didn't just go to Jo and say, "can > we do this together". He has complied the information, but it was > her stuff, so they should have published it together. I think the > main problem here are the publisher on Steve's side and WB on > Rowlings. He did ask to work with her on her encyclopedia. She said no. When she found out he was planning to publish the Lexicon for profit, she had her attorneys send his publishers a Cease & Desist letter. They ignored it. My impression from following this is that, aside from the Warner Bros. interest in protecting their rights to Harry Potter (which in all fairness, they paid for), JKR has very strong personal feelings about wanting to do her own encyclopedia whose profits are to go to charity. Jo S. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 00:26:29 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:26:29 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie wrote: > I think there's a grey area here rather than a lack of understanding on either side. The pie chart seems central to what they're trying to prove, whether it's slanted one way or the other. That's still the meat of what they're talking about. Carol responds: I agree that there's a gray area; in fact, that's why this case is so important. The Fair Use Doctrine was reformulated in 1974. IMO, it needs to be reformulated again to clarify matters related to the Internet, if nothing else. But the pie chart in itself isn't going to make much difference because it could so easily be faked or slanted. It has to be backed by solid evidence, such as actual extracts from both the Lexicon and the HP books and, if possible, a computer analysis showing the percentage of identical phrases. (Identical words won't help since "Hogwarts" and "Harry" and "Snape" and "Dumbledore" and "Quidditch" will pop up all over the Lexicon without necessarily violating copyright law. After all, a concordance or an index is based on single words and short phrases from the books and yet would be perfectly in accordance with fair use.) But, yes. The central question is how many of the phrases (not single words and not ideas, which can't be copyrighted) are JKR's own. Neither RDR nor Steve V. is claiming that he created the characters or wrote the books, which would be absurd and easily disproved. And beyond that, the question is whether the publication of his book conflicts in any way with the HP books (not the unwritten Lexicon) or hurts their sales (I doubt that anyone would buy the Lexicon who isn't a fan of the books, myself). If it's shown to provide information, not entertainment (like a concordance or an index or an encyclopedia), there's no conflict, regardless of what percentage of her words he uses. If, on the other hand, someone were to write an abridgement of the books (along the lines of the Reader's Digest Condensed Books) without JKR's authorization, that would be a clear violation of the Fair Use Doctrine because it's clearly "derivative" rather than "transformative." *All* of the words would be her own, but some of her words would be omitted. (I don't think they could legally rewrite the books along the lines of the Great Illustrated Classics series for children, either. The books in that series are out of copyright, and I don't think their own authors would recognize them: "Call me Ishmael. I am a schoolmaster, and whenever life got me down, I would leave my job and head for one special place." Yep. Easy to see how such sterling prose came to be recognized as classic. ) Anyway, the judge sounds like a man of sense. Maybe *he* should sit down and compare a page or two of the Lexicon to the relevant pages from JKR's books. Better yet, he should finish reading SS/PS (even the Scholosatic edition would do, but of course the Bloomsbury edition would be better) and at least sample some chapters from the other books. It would be easiest to do it with the Dursleys since they always appear in the books. Or read the entry on snape and compare it with "the Potions Master" (SS/PS) and "Spinner's End" (HBP). I think that would be sufficient to show that the Lexicon is not trying to compete with or replace HBP; it simply can't. Instead, it's trying to clarify the concepts, define the terms, and systematize the information in the books to make them more accessible to readers of the HP books who are confused or have forgotten something or just need to know where to look for a particular quotation or incident. Carol, who thinks that JKR should try some chocolate frogs in place of the Bertie Botts beans she's evidently been eating http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/17/rowling_narrowweb__300x373,0.jpg From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 00:41:26 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:41:26 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > I just do not get the she should stop playing the > victim part of Carol's remark. > > Of course she is not a victim in a sense that her last money is being stolen, or that she is being physically hurt (although it must be upsetting at least emotionally), but I still do not see how if she truly feels that she is being taken advantage of, what is she playing of. > Now of course the emotional remarks have nothing to do with the issues of the case and judge will not pay attention to them I am sure, just as Steve's tears, etc, but at least I can believe that she is truly upset, even if lawyer told her to play it for all it is worth. And that I dislike if it is so. Carol responds: Your last paragraph here relates to the point I was trying to make in my sign-off. The emotionalism isn't helping her case, and if the lawyers are encouraging it, I think they're making a mistake. (Photos like the one that appeared with the article--and I probably was out of line with my joke about Bertie Botts beans--don't help her, either. I don't mean that they have any effect on the case, but they don't help the public perception of her.) The testimony, if it continues (I get the impression from your post that the trial is over, which I hadn't realized) should focus on solid evidence relating to the Fair Use doctrine. Everything else, from the amount of work involved to the emotional strain on both the defendant and the plaintiff, is irrelevant. Steve's tears may have helped him or hurt him in the public eye; I don't know. But I don't think his lawyers coached him to cry on the witness stand. But JKR's lawyers are apparently encouraging her to vent her anger and resentment rather than helping her to see the facts of the case. I don't think she's made a single, supportable or relevant claim in her testimony. She neither wrote all the words nor did all the work. I'm starting to feel that I'm repeating myself. Carol, apologizing again for being mean-spirited about that photograph (maybe it's catching ) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 00:46:15 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:46:15 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > And beyond that, the question is whether the publication of his book conflicts in any way with the HP books (not the unwritten Lexicon) or hurts their sales Carol again: I meant "the unwritten encyclopedia" or so-called Scottish Book, of course. Carol, ceasing and desisting now From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Apr 18 01:22:15 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:22:15 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > But the pie chart in itself isn't going to make much difference > because it could so easily be faked or slanted. It has to be backed by > solid evidence, such as actual extracts from both the Lexicon and the > HP books and, if possible, a computer analysis showing the percentage > of identical phrases. Magpie: They presented it as evidence when they argued their case and the other side argued its case and the judge is I assume going to decide on that. I don't mean that everything's going to hinge on that pie chart being absolutely accurate, but there's not going to be an independent team sent out to count up all the words at least in this trial I don't think. I just mention it because it shows one jist of their argument, that they're saying the Lexicon is made up of her writing. Iow, they're saying it's derivative and adds too little to be considered transformative. They claim it's 91% JKR's own words, 2% citations and the rest is "facetious remarks", etymologies, common knowledge, etc. I don't know whether the judge is going to be comparing the two himself or re-reading--the remark about people not having to read the books if they read the Lexicon was ridiculous and I don't think that's something the judge has to really work out. Whether or not the Lexicon is trying to replace any one of the HP books doesn't really matter (few of the intentions really do), I don't think, in a case about whether or not putting this book together violates the copyright. I agree that it seems like a lot of the stuff that's come up in the case hasn't been relevent--and I think a lot of work went into the Lexicon. I'm not sure it doesn't violate her copyright if it's published, though. Judges are trained to ignore anything emotional, including anger and tears, so whatever result it has it probably won't be on the judge. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 02:41:08 2008 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:41:08 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > Anyway, the judge sounds like a man of sense. Maybe *he* should sit > down and compare a page or two of the Lexicon to the relevant pages > from JKR's books. Better yet, he should finish reading SS/PS (even the Scholosatic edition would do, but of course the Bloomsbury edition would be better) and at least sample some chapters from the other books. Tonks: lol. I can just see that poor Judge, who apparently did not like the book that he did half read being forced to read the whole series. He said that the names and places were geberish. I wonders if he were thinking of Lord of the Rings instead. I could never get into that series because of all of the strange names that Tolken just made up and I could not pronounce or remember. But Harry Potter names?? Here is part of a news story about the Judge: "He likened the case to that of Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Charles Dickens???s Bleak House about the pain and damage of a long drawn-out suit. The judge predicted a similar fate for the Lexicon case. He said it clearly involved unresolved areas of American law, and was almost certain to end in years of appeals and misery." ------ I suspect that he is right. There will be no cut and dry decission on this. It will drag on and on. And WB has the money to fight for the next 100 years and after that. So the good news for the rest of us, is that fandom can keep doing what it is doing for a long time to come, whatever the final outcome of this suit turns our to be. Tonks_op who agrees with Lee, I wish everyone could just play nice. Then we can all keep being friends, kiss and makeup and go on having fun with HP. Oh, wait, HERE I can boldly say "Harry Potter"! From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 09:18:59 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:18:59 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > Judges are trained to ignore anything emotional, including anger > and tears, so whatever result it has it probably won't be on the > judge. Goddlefrood: Don't go bandying this about or I'll be out of business. Most lawyers don't know about this ::adopts suitably shocked stance:: From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Apr 18 16:18:59 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:18:59 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > Judges are trained to ignore anything emotional, including anger > > and tears, so whatever result it has it probably won't be on the > > judge. > > Goddlefrood: > > Don't go bandying this about or I'll be out of business. Most > lawyers don't know about this ::adopts suitably shocked stance:: Magpie: Your secret is safe with me. I only know because I watch a lot of Law & Order, so I'm kind of an expert.:-) -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 18 18:09:58 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:09:58 -0000 Subject: That trial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Geoff: Interestingly, I was in a branch of W.H.Smiths this morning and the front page of the Daily Telegraph caught my eye, because there was a picture of JKR on the front page. I took a surreptitious peek at the inside page mentioned and found the following: "In an exchange with a witness, Judge Robert Patterson Jr admitted that he was not a Harry Potter fan. Miss Rowling is calling for authors' rights to be protected. His only experience of reading one of the books was during a visit by his grandchildren when he read them half of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone**, the first in the series. He found it hard to follow Rowling's "magical world", he said, as it was filled with strange names and words that would be gibberish in any other context. "I found it extremely complex," he said - even more so than the novels of Dickens that his own father read to him as a child. Judge Patterson suggested there was genuine worth in an encyclopaedia like The Harry Potter Lexicon, written by Steven Vander Ark, that Rowling is attempting to block by claiming that it breaches her copyright." **UK purists substitute Prilosopher's Stone. :-) Hmm. That sounds interesting. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 19:21:30 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:21:30 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > Anyway, the judge sounds like a man of sense. Maybe *he* should sit down and compare a page or two of the Lexicon to the relevant pages from JKR's books. Better yet, he should finish reading SS/PS (even the Scholosatic [cringe--Of course, I know how to spell "Scholastic"!] edition would do, but of course the Bloomsbury edition would be better) and at least sample some chapters from the other books. > > Tonks: > > lol. I can just see that poor Judge, who apparently did not like the book that he did half read being forced to read the whole series. He said that the names and places were geberish. I wonders if he were thinking of Lord of the Rings instead. I could never get into that series because of all of the strange names that Tolken just made up and I could not pronounce or remember. But Harry Potter names?? Carol responds: Well, JKR's names are often puns or clues (Remus Lupin, for example), but the judge doesn't seem to have caught that. It's odd since he seems to be a fan of Dickens that he doesn't not how Dickensian JKR's names tend to be. As for Tolkien's names, far from being something that he "just made up," they're based on invented languages with a solid foundation in linguistic principles. Sindarin is based on Welsh and Quenya (Noldorin) on Finnish. (Icelandic comes into play somewhere, but I can't remember.) JKR's names have some basis in mythology (and astronomy for the Black family) and some in her love of wordplay and her idiosyncratic sense of humor. Re the judge's remarks, which I snipped because I've also read the article, I'm sure he'll make a wise and fair decision, and I'm equally sure that whatever he decides, the losing side will appeal. And I'm also fairly sure that we'll start hearing of similar cases involving other authors with an Internet fanbase. It's a whole new world out there, very different from 1976, when the Fair Use Doctrine was first codified. (Before that, rulings in copyright cases were based on judicial rulings and legal precedent.) My concern, however, is for the future of printed books about published authors and the question of whether a book like the Lexicon (which is almost certainly *not* 91% JKR's own words, pie charts to the contrary, even without the essays) is considered fair use. BTW, you'd think that Steve V. would have written to the permissions editor at Bloomsbury rather than to JKR herself when he first contemplated publishing a print edition of the Lexicon. Wonder why he didn't? Carol, hoping that this post contains no glaring typos like "Scholosatic"! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 19:34:46 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:34:46 -0000 Subject: The Fair Use Doctrine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > My concern, however, is for the future of printed books about published authors > Carol, hoping that this post contains no glaring typos like "Scholosatic"! Carol again: Well, not exactly a typo (like "not" for "note" somewhere in that post), but I meant books about published *works*, not published *authors* (though, of course, biographies of authors also contain many of the authors' own words, both excerpts from books and extracts from personal letters. Or they used to before written communication was superseded by the ephemeral e-mail message!) Carol, not quite as confident as Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass" that her intended meaning is intelligible ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less") From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 20:52:25 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:52:25 +0800 Subject: The Trial -- commentaries, news reports and blogs, oh my! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48090A09.6070706@yahoo.com> I've been doing some surfing on the trial, and ran across the following stuff (I hope *my* quotations below fall under "fair use" :-) ). Here are some interesting quotes from a Wednesday Wall Street Journal Law Blog. About the plaintiffs' (WB/JKR) closing argument, Patterson reportedly said: Its not helpful testimony because it draws conclusions without specifics. I cant simply take the experts opinion as my own. So it doesn't sound like that pie graph is going to have much influence on the judge's decision. The blog went on to call the defense's closing argument "strong", and commented that the plaintiffs' "offered little in the way of specifics." The article also claims the plaintiffs' expert witness' testimony "simply unraveled" during cross examination, and concludes with the following: "The defenses Anthony Falzone ... invoked a professorial tone and led the judge through a thorough analysis of RDRs case. Synthesis and distillation is what makes the Lexicon 'tranformative,' he argued. 'Quality shouldnt matter,' he emphasized. If the Lexicon is lousy, Falzone concluded, the answer is not to suppress it, but for Rowling to write her own." Hmm, I think it's pretty obvious which side the WSJ blogger was more impressed with. However, Patterson's comment that he thinks the case is too close to call -- that it touches on many grey areas of American law -- has been widely reported. Sounds like the judge's decision will be one that satisfies no one. I predict a decision that blocks the lexicon in its current form, but lays out a blueprint for a rewrite that could clear it for publication. But then what do I know? And a separate WSJ law blog, also from Wednesday, talks with IP lawyer Ethan Horwitz, who summarizes fair use and relevant case law: "The fair-use test has four factors and each side can find precedent to support it. The case law is really all over the map.... "[U]nder the copyright law, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107, the fair use test has four parts. Its a 'totality of the circumstances' test that a judge is supposed to apply, basically meaning that no one prong of the test is meant to carry the day. Anyway, one of the parts examines the nature of the copyrighted work. The more creative the copyrighted work is, the less likely a fair-use argument is going to apply. The less creative a work is like if the work is a news article or something that relies on a lot of facts the more likely a fair-use argument is supposed to apply." He then cites contradictory case law, the Seinfeld trivia game (blocked) vs. a book about the Grateful Dead (permitted). "Another part of the test examines how much of a work was actually used. In a famous case involving the memoirs of President Ford, the Supreme Court found that fair use did not apply when a magazine excerpted 300 of the memoirs some 200,000 words. But in the Sony/Betamax case, the Court held that copying 100% of a movie or TV show did fall under fair use. So its very confusing.... "Another part of the fair-use test involves the effect on the published works market, essentially just how clearly the copyright holder has shown that the work will have a damaging economic effect on her publications. Thats a tough argument for Rowling to make here because she, in the past, has been so encouraging of fan Web sites and lexicons and the like. This is where she has her major problem. Vander Arks biggest issue, I think, is that his site looks so similar to the design of the Potter books. Technically speaking, its a trademark issue, but it is going to affect another factor, which is the extent and value of the taking from the original work." But apparently that last bit has already been settled by RDR/Vander Ark agreeing to a redesign that looks less like the books. Unfortunately, the blog doesn't say what the fourth part of the fair use test is. Anyone know? And then there's the blog of RDR's lead attorney, where he talks about the trial: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/anthony-falzone Some really interesting stuff there, too, with titles like "Rowling's Tight Grip Chokes Creativity", "Rowling Running Over Fair Use Like the Hogwarts' Express?" and "Tim Wu on Why Rowling is Wrong". Some interesting quotations from that last one: "Rowling ... has confused the adaptations of a work, which she does own, with discussion of her work, which she doesn't. Rowling owns both the original works themselves and any effort to adapt her book or characters to other mediafilms, computer games, and so on.... But she does not own discussion of her workbook reviews, literary criticism, or the fan guides that she's suing. The law has never allowed authors to exercise that much control over public discussion of their creations.... "Giving Rowling what she wants would be like giving Egypt the power to control guides to the pyramids." Finally, anyone interested in reading the actual documents of the trial -- legal briefs, filings, dockets, a whole bunch of declarations, etc. -- and a summary chronology of the proceedings can find them at Justia.com: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/ --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 21:08:14 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:08:14 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] The Court Case - it breaks my heart In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48090DBE.8000700@yahoo.com> Tonks: > Steve will need more than a prayer. Even God is afraid of WB. But fortunately the judge isn't. --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 21:50:47 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:50:47 +0800 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480917B7.1000200@yahoo.com> I found YAFUS (Yet Another Fair Use Summary). This was an Anonymous comment attached to a discussion of The Trial, so I have no idea how accurate it is, but (unlike me) the guy sounded like he might know what he's talking about. ==================== Fair Use: .. (1) Nature of the copyrighted work: The HP books are creative works. They have been published. Factor 1 weighs in Rowlings favor. .. (2) Nature of the use: The use is not superseding; it is TRANSFORMATIVE. The compendium is nto a novel that culls parts from the HP books. It is a reference and critical work. This has been called the most important distinction, and it goes to RDR. .. (3) Amount of the copyrighted work used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Substantial amounts of copyrighted expression, at least in the form of plot and character, will need to be used in the Compendium. This factor goes to Rowling. .. (4) Effect on the market for the copyrighted work: Again, this book does not supplant or replace Rowlings books. Indeed, publication of this kind of compendium/concordance likely INCREASES the market for the copyrighted work. This ties in with the idea of transformative use, but logically follows based on how this books use affects the book-buying public. This factor goes to RDR. ==================== The question I have is on the third test: "Substantial amounts of copyrighted expression ... will need to be used in the Compendium". Since copyright protects the expression, not the idea, doesn't the third test only cover verbatim -- or near-verbatim -- borrowings (and, as a result, doesn't the above summary of the third test collapse in on itself)? Simply summarizing plotlines, character bios, etc., wouldn't run afoul of this test. IOW, Vander Ark would have to be shown to have borrowed JKR's actual words, not merely her ideas, for the third test to apply. Am I wrong? --CJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 22:30:11 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:30:11 -0000 Subject: Two Articles on the JKR cs SVA case Message-ID: Keep in mind that my position has been clear on this matter, so take any biases you may feel I have into consideration. The first article is in the New York Times - "A Tight Grip Can Choke Creativity" By JOE NOCERA Published: February 9, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09nocera.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&em&en=f8cac3a04b36aeb1&ex=1202792400 "But if you look a little further back, you'll see that for a long time now, copyright holders have made a series of concerted efforts to extend copyright protection and make it an ever-more powerful instrument of control." "At the same time, though, copyright holders have tried to impose rules on the rest of us ? through threats and litigation ? that were never intended to be part of copyright law." The second is from Slate - "J.K. Rowling's Dark Mark" by Tim Wu http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/pagenum/all/#page_start I still say the best result is a benevolent settlement between the involved parties. If this continues, it represents nothing but heartache for all involved. Steve/bboyminn From bumbledor at comcast.net Fri Apr 18 22:37:13 2008 From: bumbledor at comcast.net (bumbledor) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:37:13 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] That trial References: Message-ID: <009201c8a1a4$bfc8b750$6401a8c0@bumbledor> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Bannister" > Geoff: > > Interestingly, I was in a branch of W.H.Smiths this > morning and the front page of the Daily Telegraph > caught my eye, because there was a picture of JKR > on the front page. > > I took a surreptitious peek at the inside page > mentioned and found the following: > > "In an exchange with a witness, Judge Robert > Patterson Jr admitted that he was not a Harry > Potter fan. > > Miss Rowling is calling for authors' rights to > be protected. His only experience of reading one > of the books was during a visit by his grandchildren > when he read them half of Harry Potter and the > Sorcerer's Stone**, the first in the series. > > He found it hard to follow Rowling's "magical world", > he said, as it was filled with strange names and words > that would be gibberish in any other context. > > "I found it extremely complex," he said - even more > so than the novels of Dickens that his own father > read to him as a child. > > Judge Patterson suggested there was genuine worth in > an encyclopaedia like The Harry Potter Lexicon, > written by Steven Vander Ark, that Rowling is > attempting to block by claiming that it breaches > her copyright." > Geoff, I think what we need is a program that will allow all the users to copy the webpage/site to our own Hard drives.. that way we have a copy of it. I used to have such a program.. THEN What will JKR do? Espically if Steve makes all his work available for free, but only asks for donations? Or if he burns it to a CD, and aks you to send a blank CD, SASE postage? Then what? JKR is being petty on this one. No doubt. Espically since hes done all the real work.. She owes him for that. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 23:03:05 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:03:05 -0000 Subject: The Trial -- commentaries, news reports and blogs, oh my! In-Reply-To: <48090A09.6070706@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee wrote: > > Unfortunately, the blog doesn't say what the fourth part of the fair use test is. Anyone know? Carol responds: May I direct your attention to my original post on the Fair Use Doctrine, which began this thread? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36010 As I said in that post, which links you to a government website that explains the key points in the Fair Use Doctrine, the four tests or "factors" as they're called in Section 107 of the Copyright Act are "1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; "2. the nature of the copyrighted work; "3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; "and "4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Again, I highly recommend the website on copyright law that I linked to and quoted extensively in that post: http://www.publaw.com/work.html The official U.S. government copyright page is also useful: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Carol, unable to find the post in which she recommended that second website but sure that it's here somewhere From bumbledor at comcast.net Sat Apr 19 00:22:20 2008 From: bumbledor at comcast.net (bumbledor) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:22:20 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] The Court Case - it breaks my heart References: <48090DBE.8000700@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005e01c8a1b3$6ec76b80$6401a8c0@bumbledor> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Kaiwen" > Tonks: > >> Steve will need more than a prayer. Even God is afraid of WB. > > But fortunately the judge isn't. > While it may be true that big corporation seem to be running this country, the legal precidence for this type of action has not yet been set. That is why the judge begged them to settle. No, The judge is not afraid of WB. He wins no matter what, as he gets his paycheck. What is at stake here, is not only fandom writtings and postings, but also the way fans do things.. If a settlement is not reached that is acceptable to both parties, just think of the ripple effect this will have on future fan stuff. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 00:35:56 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:35:56 -0000 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use In-Reply-To: <480917B7.1000200@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > I found YAFUS (Yet Another Fair Use Summary). This was an Anonymous comment attached to a discussion of The Trial, so I have no idea how accurate it is, but (unlike me) the guy sounded like he might know what he's talking about. > > ==================== > (3) Amount of the copyrighted work used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Substantial amounts of copyrighted expression, at least in the form of plot and character, will need to be used in the Compendium. This factor goes to Rowling. > > ==================== Lee again: > The question I have is on the third test: "Substantial amounts of > copyrighted expression ... will need to be used in the Compendium". > > Since copyright protects the expression, not the idea, doesn't the third test only cover verbatim -- or near-verbatim -- borrowings (and, as a result, doesn't the above summary of the third test collapse in on itself)? Simply summarizing plotlines, character bios, etc., wouldn't run afoul of this test. IOW, Vander Ark would have to be shown to have borrowed JKR's actual words, not merely her ideas, for the third test to apply. Am I wrong? Carol responds: First, your anonymous source is simply giving his own opinion. How authoritative it is, I have no idea. However, as I tried to explain in another post in this thread, there is no set amount of allowable copyrighted text since the amount used varies according to the nature of the work. As Assia (a_svirn) noted in an offlist message to me, a dictionary of Shakespeare quotations would consist almost exclusively of Shakespeare's own words. Granted, Shakespeare's works are now in the public domain, but a similar work based on the works of, say, Tolkien or JKR (one living, one dead, but both still under copyright) would require substantial amounts of copyrighted text with only, let's say, notes and an introduction to add to the words of the author and substantial rearrangement, either alphabetical or thematic or both, to qualify as "transformative." An index uses nothing but the words of an author and the page numbers they appear on, but the words out of context are no longer the author's property, so that's not a problem AFAIK. A concordance, as you know, also lists an author's words alphabetically but illustrates the use of those words with quotations from the original works. I've never heard of a concordance being regarded as a violation of copyright law; its nature necessitates its being mostly the original author's own words rearranged in a useful format. (How else, barring a Google search which might or might not locate all of them, am I supposed to find all the many references in Shelley's poetry to "veil," "veils," and "veiled," for example? I know; Shelley died in 1822, but that's beside the point, which is the usefulness of a concordance for literary analysis of his poetry, in this instance, a hypothetical paper on Shelley's use of veil symbolism.) So the nature of the Lexicon as a reference work for people who are already readers of the HP novels would determine approximately how much quotation and close paraphrase is necessary as opposed to analysis, summary, and information on mythology, etymology, etc. from outside the text. Although I've never seen a companion book organized exactly like the Lexicon (which, after all, was originally a website, complete with links), I think that a rough allowable percentage could probably be calculated by comparison with companion books for other authors. If you happen to own "A Tolkien Compass" (ed. Jared Lobdell), for example, take a look at the first essay, "Gollum's Character Transformation in 'The Hobbit,' at least half of which consists of parallel passages from the original edition of "The Hobbit" and the second edition from th 1950s to show how Tolkien's conception of Gollum changed as he was writing LOTR. But there's enough summary and analysis, not to mention rearrangement, to qualify the essay as an original work despite its huge dependence on Tolkien's own words. Now granted, Steve V. isn't claiming that the Lexicon is literary analysis. It has a different purpose; it's a reference work. and that means that a *larger* percentage will be the original author's own words. He is not claiming that he wrote JKR's books; he is directing the reader to passages in the books where the relevant information can be found. I'm going to quote a large portion (not the entire article) of the entry on Severus Snape: NAME MEANINGS Birth name: Severus Snape. 'Severus' meaning: 'Severus' has obvious connotations of severity and strictness. There are also several saints with the name 'Severus.' 'Snape' meaning: JKR says "Snape is an English village" (WEB LINKeT), probably the one in North Yorkshire near Hadrian's (aka Severus') Wall. This village also has a 'WEB LINKSnape Castle.' There is another Snape Village that is near Saxmundham, northeast of Ipswich near the Alde River. snape (v.) - 'to be hard upon, rebuke, snub,' c.1300, from Old Norse sneypa 'to outrage, dishonor, disgrace.' (WEB LINKetymonline) sneap: to nip; pinch; put down; repress; snub (WEB LINKphrontistery). Other names: Other names: `Sev' which was Lily's nickname for him, `Snivellus,' used by James to ridicule him; the 'Half-blood Prince' a pun Snape made on his mother's maiden name. Drawing of Severus Snape by Red Scharlach.FAMILY Birthdate: January 9 (JKR) 1960 (year based on James's dates-DH16). Deathdate: May 1, 1998, during the Battle of Hogwarts, about an hour before the dawn (DH32). Ancestry: Half-blood. Mother: Eileen Prince (witch --HBP30). Father: Tobias Snape (Muggle --HBP30). Childhood: Appears to have had an abusive father (OP26, DH33). Location of childhood home: A brick row house on Spinner's End by a river (DH33), in what appears to be a rundown area of an industrial city in northern England (HBP2). Relationships: Severus loved childhood friend Lily Evans faithfully, but in a possessive, obsessive way, until he died. In 1999, Rowling was asked if Snape had ever fallen in love. Here's what she said: WEB LINKexcerpt from "The Connection" interview, October 12, 1999 [mp3 audio]. APPEARANCE Hair: black and greasy, shoulder length. Eyes: black. Complexion: sallow, also described as very pale. Distinguishing features: long, hooked nose, scowl; Dark Mark on left forearm but not always clearly visible. While Snape is repeatedly compared to a bat, he is not a vampire (WBD). [End of excerpt] Tell me: Does that sound as if Steve V. is violating copyright by using too much close paraphrase or quotation? He's taking *information* from the books, but the few quotations are from interviews (with links that ovbiously can't appear in the printed version). For the rest of the (now outdated) entry, which does include a few quotations relating to his appearance and some paraphrases of "Spinner's End," go to http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/snape.html But if that entry, which I chose because it relates to an important character that I happen to be interested in and which would, I suspect, be rather frequently consulted, is 91 percent JKR's words, I'll eat the rotten flobberworms that Snape made Harry sort through for his DH detention. Well, maybe not. But, IMO, it illustrates that the information on Snape is purely informative and in no way substitutes for a reading of the books. If you want entertainment, if you want to really know Snape, you have to read the entire HP series. OTOH, if you want information on the possible significance of his name or want to know what JKR said about him in interviews or want to know where the references to his mother and father are found, the Lexicon will give you that information. (BTW, the house at Spinner's End being Snape's childhood home could be an error; at any rate, it's an inference rather than a canon "fact." And the entry still contains outdated evidence relating to Snape's loyalties, which, of course, were definitively established in DH. If you're not interested in Snape (bite your tongue, Carol!) or think that his entry is not representative, take a look at the article for your own favorite character, or try these: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizworld/places/mungos.html (St. Mungo's) http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizworld/knight_bus.html (The Knight bus) http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/wands.html (wands) I did find one entry that JKR might legitimately object to, which does contain a disproportionate number of JKR's own words: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/hogwarts/sorting_hat.html (Sorting Hat) However, the excerpts from the Sorting Hat's songs could easily be cut down to size with a bit more summary and analysis added to make that entry similar to the others I've cited. This entry does not seem to me to be typical, if only because the other characters and artifacts don't normally spout poetry! So, granted, the Lexicon is a flawed work which, IMO, should not be published in its current state. Steve V. needs to update it and JKR ought, as a courtesy, to be allowed to correct the errors, if any, that remain after he's revised it and eliminate overzealous quotation as in the Sorting Hat entry. (It seems to me that RDR books was in too big a hurry to get it published.) But as far as copyright violation is concerned, I really don't see it except in the Sorting Hat article (the lyrics would require permission to reprint). Carol, who thinks that JKR would have been much better off making a list of specific objections and requests and that the whole thing ouught never to have gone to court From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Apr 19 05:16:03 2008 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:16:03 -0000 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol (heavily snipped): So, granted, the Lexicon is a flawed work which, IMO, should not be published in its current state. Steve V. needs to update it and JKR ought, as a courtesy, to be allowed to correct the errors, if any, that remain after he's revised it and eliminate overzealous quotation as in the Sorting Hat entry. (It seems to me that RDR books was in too big a hurry to get it published.) But as far as copyright violation is concerned, I really don't see it except in the Sorting Hat article (the lyrics would require permission to reprint). Hi Carol! I believe this is an excellent observation up to this last paragraph. I don't understand how you could view the Lexicon as a flawed work when JKR herself proclaimed it to be "my natural home" where she would go to "check a fact" rather than buy a Potter book for reference. (Quotes from JKR website, fan sites 2004 Lexicon) As far as JKR correcting errors, I would laugh, shudder and gulp at the notion that this woman (great writer, really bad at math and details that were dismissive to "the meat of the story" such as the missing 24 hours) could offer an argument to what Steve has rationally demised as fitting given thee um given in her story. JKR trusted Steve's work enough that she could count on it to be accurate when she was writing the books but she now feels that her `proposed' encyclopedia could be jeopardized by Steve's book How? If she's talking about competing with Steve's book that just sounds absurd! What Potter fan would deny the writer her version? (Everyone would buy her version if they are a Potter fan) If she's concerned with monetary gain, I feel sad for her and the societies that she feels she could represent (she has more than enough money to suffice). If she's talking about control, I hope for all our sakes she hits a dead end! I remember sometime back, I believe it was Heidi, (forgive me if I'm wrong) who informed us that we had to be careful in our postings of our verbatim usage. You had to acknowledge JKR, where you found the quote etc. or your post may not be allowable for fear of legality. Given the currant occurrence, could anyone use our posts (many were beyond excellent) for profit or would those posts also be subjected to similar scrutiny? The answer, I'm sure, rests with the result of this trial. Snow From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Sat Apr 19 06:18:14 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:18:14 -0000 Subject: The Court Case - it breaks my heart In-Reply-To: <005e01c8a1b3$6ec76b80$6401a8c0@bumbledor> Message-ID: Hi Folks, bumbledor wrote: >>> What is at stake here, is not only fandom writtings and postings, but also the way fans do things ... If a settlement is not reached that is acceptable to both parties, just think of the ripple effect this will have on future fan stuff <<< My worry is that whether they settle or not, whether WB & JKR win, or whether RDR & SVA win it is still bad news for fans. Fans will need to be increasingly worried about what we post, and squeaky clean about what we print. We were always concerned about offending WB (when we organised Accio 2005 we made sure that they were happy with what we were doing, and took their wishes into account in our programming) but now I have nightmares about fans requiring our own lawyers. On the other hand authors may think twice about engaging fans in the generous way JKR has. Site of the month is starting to look misguided, etc. There you go, ho hum. Cheers, Dumbledad. From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Sat Apr 19 07:19:29 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:19:29 -0000 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, Carol wrote: >>> there is no set amount of allowable copyrighted text since the amount used varies according to the nature of the work. [...] a dictionary of Shakespeare quotations would consist almost exclusively of Shakespeare's own words Granted, Shakespeare's works are now in the public domain, but a similar work based on the works of, say, Tolkien or JKR (one living, one dead, but both still under copyright) would require substantial amounts of copyrighted text with only, let's say, notes and an introduction to add to the words of the author and substantial rearrangement, either alphabetical or thematic or both, to qualify as "transformative." An index uses nothing but the words of an author and the page numbers they appear on, but the words out of context are no longer the author's property, so that's not a problem AFAIK. A concordance, as you know, also lists an author's words alphabetically but illustrates the use of those words with quotations from the original works. I've never heard of a concordance being regarded as a violation of copyright law; its nature necessitates its being mostly the original author's own words rearranged in a useful format. <<< I'm glad you've picked up on concordances too, that's one of the things that has been bugging me. On another list I saw an analysis of the copyright around indexes: >>> Indexes are recognized by law as creative works with separate copyright from the works indexed. The publishing situation with a typical back-of-the-book index is that the indexer agrees to have the index be considered a "work for hire" and does not retain the copyright, but there *is* a separate copyright and the indexer is considered the author of the index. More than one indexer has informed a late-paying publisher that they retain the copyright in the index until paid for their work, so that in theory the book cannot go to publication without their being paid. <<< But let's get back to concordances. Carol mentions "granted, Shakespeare's works are now in the public domain" I wonder if that is important. Many of the concordances we've talked about (Cruden's and Strong's) use texts that were not copyrighted when the concordance was written (though the copyright to the King James version is a tad confusing). Plus, recent biblical concordances may be part of the original copyright: for example someone on the Leaky thread commented that the NIV study concordance and the New American Standard Bible concordance are research products of the original translating team and included in the original copyright. Then I'm left wondering if the concordances that do cover material which I'd imagine was still copyright, for example "A concordance to the complete poems and plays of T.S. Eliot" by J. L. Dawson, may be a breach of copyright that the copyright holder chooses not to challenge? Do we have an example of a concordance written about copyright material where the copyright holder did not want the concordance published but where publication went ahead anyway and was protected as fair-use? Then we'd know for sure. Cheers, Dumbledad. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Apr 19 13:19:38 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:19:38 -0000 Subject: The Court Case - it breaks my heart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dumbledad wrote: > My worry is that whether they settle or not, whether WB & JKR win, or > whether RDR & SVA win it is still bad news for fans. Fans will need > to be increasingly worried about what we post, and squeaky clean > about what we print. We were always concerned about offending WB > (when we organised Accio 2005 we made sure that they were happy with > what we were doing, and took their wishes into account in our > programming) but now I have nightmares about fans requiring our own > lawyers. On the other hand authors may think twice about engaging > fans in the generous way JKR has. Site of the month is starting to > look misguided, etc. Magpie: I think the only ruling that would really be trouble for fans is if JKR loses *on the grounds* that she "approved" of the book when she approved of the Lexicon and said she liked it imo. The other things really don't have to do with us. If JKR wins because it's not fair use, it doesn't really change much. If RDR wins because it's fair use it also doesn't change much. It would only apply to fans who wanted to put out an encyclopedia. However, if JKR lost because she's "approved" of the book by saying she liked the website, that imo would be a big problem. Because it would send the signal that authors could *accidentally* approve of something by being nice about it. That, I think, could make authors more paranoid and feel they need to stamp down on more things and that would suck. Right now, as I understand it, authors can choose which things they go after with their copyright. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 13:35:30 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:35:30 -0000 Subject: The Court Case - it breaks my heart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > I think the only ruling that would really be trouble for fans is if JKR > loses *on the grounds* that she "approved" of the book when she > approved of the Lexicon and said she liked it imo. The other things > really don't have to do with us. If JKR wins because it's not fair use, > it doesn't really change much. If RDR wins because it's fair use it > also doesn't change much. It would only apply to fans who wanted to put > out an encyclopedia. > > However, if JKR lost because she's "approved" of the book by saying she > liked the website, that imo would be a big problem. Because it would > send the signal that authors could *accidentally* approve of something > by being nice about it. That, I think, could make authors more paranoid > and feel they need to stamp down on more things and that would suck. > Right now, as I understand it, authors can choose which things they go > after with their copyright. > Alla: Well, I agree with you that if this language will be in the decision it will send a signal to many authors loud and clear to NOT approve things like this anymore, etc. But the thing is if JKR IS going to loose, IMO this language is bound to be there in one form or another. Does it make sense? IMO JKR cannot loose just on the grounds that she approved the website, the fact that she approved the website will go as one of the supporting factors to apply the fair use here as far as I understand it. I mean, again, maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that if judge will decide that since she approved Lexicon in website, that will show for example that her claims that Lexicon will hurt her sales are not supported, etc. So it seems to me that if she looses judge will mention this factor one way or another, at least as dicta. Now, unrelated question is did I dream it up or somebody else saw it too that judge promised decision in three weeks? Oh WOW, either he is going to postpone writing every other decision since case is so high profile or federal judges have much much lighter caseload than I imagined. Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 14:11:56 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:11:56 -0000 Subject: The Court Case - it breaks my heart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > I think the only ruling that would really be trouble for fans is if JKR > loses *on the grounds* that she "approved" of the book when she > approved of the Lexicon and said she liked it imo. zgirnius: I agree. > Magpie: > The other things > really don't have to do with us. If JKR wins because it's not fair use, > it doesn't really change much. If RDR wins because it's fair use it > also doesn't change much. It would only apply to fans who wanted to put > out an encyclopedia. zgirnius: I disagree. If RDR wins because it is fair use, I feel this would be beneficial to fans everywhere, not merely the few individuals who wish to publish book guides to fictional universes. Owners of fan websites of various stripes could feel a bit safer about their activities. If RDR loses because it is not fair use, the opposite is true. Consider: http://whysnape.tripod.com/ This is not an encyclopedia, it is a Snape fansite. But the link to "Book Analysis" gets you to pages with all the Snape text of the series' books, together with short, matchibg snippets analysis/paraphrase. The owner of the site is clearly nervous about this, the head of the page says: "Warning: In absolutely no case must this text be used for other things than evaluation, fan or inspiration purposes. I do this only to allow other fans to appreciate the delightful work of JK Rowling and make a full character analysis of one of her creations. No money is being made, keep it that way!" > magpie: > Right now, as I understand it, authors can choose which things they > go after with their copyright. zgirnius: I think there are already limits to how arbitrary authors can be. For example, if I wrote a typo-free Potterverse Encyclopedia without lousy humor (even writing this makes me snicker), and I found a publisher, and I published it, I think WB/JKR would have to answer some questions about why they are going after SVA and not me/my publisher. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 14:20:44 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:20:44 -0000 Subject: The Court Case - it breaks my heart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > But the thing is if JKR IS going to loose, IMO this language is bound > to be there in one form or another. > > Does it make sense? IMO JKR cannot loose just on the grounds that she > approved the website, the fact that she approved the website will go > as one of the supporting factors to apply the fair use here as far as > I understand it. zgirnius: You would know more about it that I! I think you are probably right about this. But the decision could include other statements that point to other factors that would tend to make fansites safer. For example, a statement about the transformative nature of the Lexicon, or the necessity of the 'taking' to achieve the objective of the Lexicon, would mean that even *websites* akin to the Lexicon do not need author approval. So the lack of such might be less of an issue. > Alla: > Now, unrelated question is did I dream it up or somebody else saw it > too that judge promised decision in three weeks? > > Oh WOW, either he is going to postpone writing every other decision > since case is so high profile or federal judges have much much > lighter caseload than I imagined. zgirnius: You have overlooked the obvious explanation here... Judge Patterson is not computer savvy enough to use the online site, to he wants the Lexicon out sooner rather than later so that he could understand what his grandkids are jabbering about. (^ Humor. ) From specialcritters at hotmail.com Sat Apr 19 15:18:05 2008 From: specialcritters at hotmail.com (Lee Truslow) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:18:05 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] That trial In-Reply-To: <009201c8a1a4$bfc8b750$6401a8c0@bumbledor> References: <009201c8a1a4$bfc8b750$6401a8c0@bumbledor> Message-ID: I don't know ANYTHING about the legals and logistics of all this, but I agree. About 4 years ago I started taking notes for a similar "encyclopedia" of the Brian Jacques "Redwall" series. It was pretty simple--characters, names, types, relationships, etc. Somebody at Scholastic thought it was a good idea, too. It was a TON of hassle, reading and taking notes at the same time. Well, nothing's come of it to-date, although I ought to resurrect and update it. My dream was to do it with Brian's blessings; on his site, even he admitted the series needed one! Why am I blithering on? LOL. I guess I just wanted to vouch for the amount of work involved. To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.comFrom: bumbledor at comcast.net JKR is being petty on this one. No doubt. Espically since hes done all the real work.. She owes him for that. _________________________________________________________________ Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic. http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51N1653A [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From malra at shaw.ca Sat Apr 19 16:51:30 2008 From: malra at shaw.ca (Teri Gardner) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:51:30 -0700 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve and the great debate on Copyright. Message-ID: <81528EF80D194CA69E0C57EE46172610@TeriPC> Hello again, I get the HPFGU-OT Chatter list in digest format and for some reason cutting and pasting isn't working, but I wanted to respond to Lee Kaiwen's post. Sorry for lack of quotes from the original message, but Outlook is giving me grief when it comes to cutting and pasting in a new email (dunno why, I can do this at work, but not on my home computer where I'm currently writing this from). So, onto Lee's post: "Fan endeavours" is an ambiguous term I used in the post, but I was a bit more specific in my question to the lawyers (one of which was an HP fan and a fan of Star Trek as well, even if he wasn't participating in fandom). In his opinion, fanfiction, fanart, fan films, fan plays, and pretty much anything else inbetween that hadn't gotten the permission of the original creator or his/her estate was considered copyright infringment. Then again, he was one of those lawyers who had a very closed interpretation of copyright law. Another considered fanart, fan plays/films and stories that were clearly parodies of their favourite shows, etc., not infringement, but considered most fanfiction, fanzines, many websites, and the like to fall under the umbrella of copyright infringement. Another lawyer I spoke with was somwhere in between in his interpretation. It's still ambiguous and honestly if any of it went to court, decisions would be made on a case by case basis, but I was asking a general question. As for legal precedents and cases, in all honesty, even though I work for and have worked for some of the top law firms in Canada, getting a legal opinion in writing would be expensive for me to do. I would love to cite legal precedent complete with cases and so on and so forth, but I can't afford to pay a lawyer and the several students not to mention any legal assistants that are billable, just to get a question I asked out of some concern and curiosity answered. I may get a bit of a discount, but er...it would still be expensive. You made reference to the references books you had in your bookshelf on gospel harmonies that are merely rearrangement of biblical texts. The Bible is under public domain and no one owns the copyright to it. Some translations, yes, but that's about the extent of it. So, I'm not sure how this was relevant to the current case where JKR is very much alive and from what I've been gathering, the other reference books that have been published on the HP universe not only contained some analysis, research and critique, but have been put out with her and WB's permission. In the case of JRR Tokien, a deceased author, his estate has given permission for reference books to be published. Copyright on written works goes on for some time after the author's death. Anywhere from 50 to 95 years depending on the country in question. The estate can renew if they choose after that time period expires. As for money exchanging hands, this becomes a bit of a tricky issue and I don't believe anyone has ever gone to court over it unless a clear profit was being made and the original creator felt this was cutting into their own profits, because it usually ends at the cease and desist letter. The general belief from the lawyers I spoke with (and again I don't have any specific examples of anything going to court) is if money is changing hands, whether a profit is being made or not, an original creator can possibly have a case under the copyright laws. I only know personally of two cases where fanclubs or fans had their practices shut down because of the money issue - as I mentioned in my original post, Colleen Doran, creator of "A Distant Soil", shut her "official fanclub" down because of the issue with the funds the club was generating (I know it was operating at a loss, but that didn't seem to matter much to Colleen's lawyer) and another fan who made t-shirts of Elfquest characters (Wendy and Richard Pini's creation) and sold them for a very tiny profit (she said she did it for friends initially, who paid for the cost of the materials and then gave her a bit extra for her troubles and then it got around she was making them and more folks asked for them). WaRP Graphics (now Warp Graphics) issued her a cease and desist letter, which she complied and that was the end of that. And yes, internet as a medium for publishing is still tricky and there are authors and film production companies that will exercise their copyright on websites and others who don't really see it as such. There seems to be a growing belief that the internet is a publishing medium. One non-legal example is a friend of mine approached a publishing house to pitch a novel she wrote. They found large chunks of the novel on her internet blog and passed on the book, even going so far to tell her that while she is a talented writer, and they would have normally considered her book, since she had "published" it on the internet, it was considered already published. She no longer posts her original work on the internet at all. >From what I understand, one of RDR's arguments is, because JKR not only gave her blessing on the site, but gave it an award, that she has endorsed the lexicon and should not be able to halt its being published in book format. This is an implied license and this is one of the things on the table. If RDR wins on that grounds, then this is the thing that could "kill" fandom as we know it. Here's a link to some interesting comments on the issue: http://praetorianguard.livejournal.com/279585.html#cutid5 I meant quoting as in verbatim. If one is quoting a piece of literature, it is customary to put it in quotations and reference it along the way. I'm given to understand that in the manuscript for the Lexicon book, Steve Van der Ark did nothing of the sort. I can't confirm it, because I haven't seen the manuscript, but that's one of the claims JRK is making. If that's the case, then it can be considered plagiarism. I would have hoped that someone of SVA's background would have known better, but people sometimes do strange things even when they should know better. I know a few folks have taken selected sections of the Lexicon, using them as proof that SVA is not using JKR's words directly from the series, but the Lexicon is 400 pages plus long in book format. I know supporters of SVA are using some of these entries as proof, but really, one needs to look at the whole work, not just one or two entries. I personally haven't had much use for the Lexicon since I have a pretty good memory of the books and can cite details that even surprise me (why can I remember stupid minutia and not the date of my best friend's birthday is beyond me). Also, just a note because I did notice this a few times, trademark and copyright are not the same thing. Trademarks are a "use it or lose it and protect it as much as possible, and then some" sort of deal and WB guards its trademarks jealously. Copyright is a different matter and I believe left more open to interpretation and is more fluid. They can be related to some degree, but they are essentially a different animal. As for the case in progress I have this to say: RDR's lawyers needed to prepare them and SVA for testifying on the stand. Those testimonies were a huge mistake and they are not looking good in this case. RDR's outright lies have come to bite them on the arse and SVA really should be careful about blaming RDR for the state of things. I've seen authors slag their publishers before and have never been published again (I have two friends who did that - huge mistake - no publishing company will touch them and they were both extremely talented and imaginative writers). Claiming "They made me do it, I did nothing wrong," is not going to fly. The theatrics are a bit much on both sides. Save it if this case goes to a jury. The judge doesn't give a rat's posterior. The famous (or infamous) pie chart. Exaggeration or not? Some say yes, some say no. I say it's likely an exaggeration of what the truth is, but that's pretty typical of these sorts of things. Still, it's a clever move on JKR's part. And WB and JKR's lawyers are on the ball. Even if they are in the wrong (which I don't personally think they are), they have a really well prepared team of lawyers and they're eating the other side for dinner, bones and all. I actually feel sorry for RDR and SVA, which I didn't before (I'm of the "you made your bed, you lie in it" sort of gal when it comes to legal cases that go to court, but man, ouch!). The judge's request for the two sides to sort it out on their own: I like this idea very much. I personally feel that if SVA and RDR played their cards in a slightly different way (especially RDR, frankly their contemptuous attitude towards JKR and WB prior to the case going before a judge was ridiculous and I feel this is likely THE reason this went as far as it has), this would not be an issue. Having worked with WB in the past, I have learned this very well, you do not EVER want to piss them off. NEVER DO IT. Let me reiterate that...DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES PISS WARNER BROS. OFF. They will set out to destroy you in the most brutal way possible. I kid you not, they are nasty. Thing is, a lot of the time, they are right. On a side note, among my many hopes and dreams, I want to be a published author of a fantasy series (which I'm working on). When it comes to fandom, should I garner any fans, I originally decided I would take the Warp Graphics approach: You can play in my world, but not with my main characters. I thought that would be fair. Now I'm not so sure. Teri [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bumbledor at comcast.net Sat Apr 19 18:53:42 2008 From: bumbledor at comcast.net (bumbledor) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:53:42 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: The Court Case - it breaks my heart References: Message-ID: <003001c8a24e$b08da200$6401a8c0@bumbledor> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Regan" > Hi Folks, > > bumbledor wrote: >>>> What is at stake here, is not only fandom writtings and postings, > but also the way fans do things ... If a settlement is not reached > that is acceptable to both parties, just think of the ripple effect > this will have on future fan stuff <<< > > My worry is that whether they settle or not, whether WB & JKR win, or > whether RDR & SVA win it is still bad news for fans. Fans will need > to be increasingly worried about what we post, and squeaky clean > about what we print. We were always concerned about offending WB > (when we organised Accio 2005 we made sure that they were happy with > what we were doing, and took their wishes into account in our > programming) but now I have nightmares about fans requiring our own > lawyers. On the other hand authors may think twice about engaging > fans in the generous way JKR has. Site of the month is starting to > look misguided, etc. > > There you go, ho hum. > > Cheers, > > Dumbledad. I am not the least worried about W.B. In fact, I curse their very name. I think they totaly ruined the HP movies. I felt the magic in the first one, felt ok with the 2nd one. The 3rd movie was the first time in my life I had to force myself not to walk out and demand my money back. The 4th one, well, they cut out so much, still it was viewable and I sat and watched it despite my aprehension. And the 5th movie? I never went to the theater to see it. I have all on DVD of course, being a big HP fan and a collector of over 500 items. The story is great. The wizarding world created by JKR is great. I thought that maybe the movie houses would take note from the way LOTR was done, that is to film for the home theater, and then edit for the silver screen to sell the larger version for home theater. Apparently WB didn't catch on. Only for the last movie, are they starting to get the idea that the whole story needs to be told. As it is, they have left huge gaps in the story line, that even with a 2 part final movie, some of those gaps will never be filled in. They are in it for one thing only, and its not the story, the telling of the story, or the fans. They are in it for greed. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 20:16:08 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:16:08 -0000 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier (heavily snipped): > > So, granted, the Lexicon is a flawed work which, IMO, should not be published in its current state. Steve V. needs to update it and JKR ought, as a courtesy, to be allowed to correct the errors, if any, that remain after he's revised it and eliminate overzealous quotation as in the Sorting Hat entry. (It seems to me that RDR books was in too big a hurry to get it published.) But as far as copyright violation is concerned, I really don't see it except in the Sorting Hat article (the lyrics would require permission to reprint). Snow responded: > I believe this is an excellent observation up to this last paragraph. > I don't understand how you could view the Lexicon as a flawed work when JKR herself proclaimed it to be "my natural home" where she would go to "check a fact" rather than buy a Potter book for reference. (Quotes from JKR website, fan sites 2004 Lexicon) Carol responds: My remark was a concession. My main point was that the Lexicon is not, for the most part, JKR's words. Based on the random entries I looked, it's most a listing of canon facts, information gleaned from a reading of the books but not copied directly. The few quotes and close paraphrases are properly cited. However, I did encounter flaws, the most important being that the Snape entry is not up to date (it still contains a debate over Snape's loyalties that was relevant to HBP but is now obsolete thanks to the revelations in DH) and the Sorting Hat entry *is* what JKR (inaccurately, IMO) claims that the entire Lexicon is: almost entirely JKR's own words. The lyrics to the sorting Hat's songs have been quoted more extensively than fair use normally allows. That entry, unlike the others I cited, does include material that would require permission to use. So even though I'm on Steve V's side in this case, I do find flaws in the work. Entries that don't take into account the events of DH need to be updated; the Sorting Hat entry (and any others that rely too heavily on JKR's own words) need to be revised to meet fair use guidelines. I see no reason why JKR can't simply point out places that need to be revised. Ane I still think that RDR was trying to rush to publication without giving Steve V. the necessary time to make sure that he wasn't violating fair use or making any substantial errors and that he was incorporating material from DH to make sure that all of his entries were up to date. The claim that the entire Lexicon is 91 percent JKR's words is, I think, quite easily disproved and most of her other complaints (her emotional state, the amount of work she put into the original books, the supposed competition between his book and her unwritten encyclopedia, even the profit that RDR and Steve V. might make from his published book) are irrelevant. But as a courtesy to JKR, and to keep her from appealing the case and causing who knows what harm to the fair use doctrine and the rights of fans and scholars alike based on an original work, I think Steve V. ought to make certain changes (updating the entries, altering the Sorting Hat entry so that it consists of more commentary and summary and less quoted material, correcting any errors that JKR considers to be particularly egregious--admittedly, the few errors she cites, such as the hypothetical etymology of Alohomora, are minor and could not have been corrected, JKR to the contrary, by a Google search). Her earlier remark that the Lexicon is her "natural home" is, of course, inconsistent with her comment that she only consulted it twice. Snow: > As far as JKR correcting errors, I would laugh, shudder and gulp at > the notion that this woman (great writer, really bad at math and > details that were dismissive to "the meat of the story" such as the > missing 24 hours) could offer an argument to what Steve has > rationally demised as fitting given thee um given in her story. Carol responds: I'm not talking about JKR's own errors in "maths." If I were to talk about all the problems involving the number of students in the school or the Weasleys' ages (even James is said three times to have been fifteen in SWm when he would actually have been sixteen, as would Severus, Remus, and Lily--probably Sirius as well) or the missing twenty-four hours or the amount of time that the Potters were under the Fidelius charm, I'd be here all day. I'm not talking about steve's pointing out JKR's inconsistencies, which he has every right to do, or her "correcting" him by asking him not to mention them. I'm simply saying that if Steve is wrong in some of his hypotheses, such as his etymologies or his assertion that the house at Spinner's End was Severus snape's childhood home (an inference, not a canon fact), JKR should point them out and Steve should, as a courtesy, correct them. (He does, of course, have the same inalienable right to make mistakes in his book as JKR has to make them in hers. I'm not talking about law, in this instance. I'm talking about courtesy and civility. JKR, of course, ought to be civil as well. Instead, she's almost as hysterical as Trelawney confronting Umbridge and as vindictive as Hermione confronting Rita Skeeter. (She evidently has no concept of fair use; she seems to think that an author's right to control the interpretation and even the quoting of her works is absolute. I think it was Lee Storm (not the other Lee, aka CJ) who said that JKR seems to want absolute control over the Potterverse. I agree with that statement. Ever since JKR responded to a reporter's questioning of her assertion that DD was gay with "He's my character!" I've felt that she considers her view of the characters as definitive, without regard for the process of interpretation that occurs naturally for each reader as he or she encounters the printed page. This lawsuit seems to demonstrate that same mentality. She wants more control over books about her works, whether those books are informative or interpretive, than is allowed by law. The Fair Use Doctrine exists to prevent the sort of control that she's attempting to assert. Yes, the original author has rights (for example, the right to prevent pirated copies or unauthorized abridgements), but critics, scholars, reviewers, and, these days, fans, have right, too. And JKR needs to understand and acknowledge those rights. A courteous request to update the entries, to incorporate "facts" from DH, to refrain from quoting so much of the Sorting Hat's songs (song lyrics do require permission from the copyright holder) is perfectly legitimate and ought, IMO, to be honored. A lawsuit claiming that the entire Lexicon is "plagiarized," that her words have been "stolen," that the Lexicon is nothing but a rearrangement of her words and ideas and the work that Steve V. did on it is really her work is just absurd. Even if the book were plagiarized, which it isn't, plagiarism is an ethical violation, not a legal one, unless it involves copyright infringement. And the only entry among those I cited (obviously, I didn't check every entry, only a random sampling) that violates copyright is the Sorting Hat entry. (A printed version of the Black Family Tree would probably also violate copyright, but it seems that RDR has already agreed out of court not to use any illustrations. The rights to the art from the Scholastic editions would be Mary GrandPre's, in any case, not JKR's.) Snow: > JKR trusted Steve's work enough that she could count on it to be > accurate when she was writing the books but she now feels that > her `proposed' encyclopedia could be jeopardized by Steve's book How? Carol responds: Whether JKR regarded it as accurate or not is somewhat beside the point I was making, which is that the Snape entry, for example, is not up to date. It may have been accurate when he wrote it, but the question of Snape's loyalties is no longer a matter of debate. If Steve wants to make his book as useful as possible, it should be revised to incorporate information from DH. (Who is still buying "The Great Snape Debate" by Orson Scott Card and somebody or other? No one that I know of. The book is obsolete. Any entries in the Lexicon that are based solely on HBP and earlier books without incorporating DH are also obsolete, and its in Steve's own best interests, and that of his publisher, to update them.) I agree with you that JKR's proposed encyclopedia is not being threatened by Steve's project. He is merely compiling information from the books in a format that enables readers to find information about JKR's characters and other creations more easily than they could do by searching through the books, summarizing and occasionally analyzing canon, with a few quotations and paraphrases as illustration. Her book would be wholly different since it would include information that Steve has no access to, her own notes and intentions and writing process. For that reason, hers would be more authoritative than his (though a reader is still under no obligation to accept an author's interpretation of her own works as definitive if it conflicts with what's actually on the page :-) There's no way, for example, that Charlie Weasley can be just three years older than Percy if Gryffindor hasn't won the Quidditch Cup since Charlie left *and* they haven't won the cup for the last seven years. If I go by the books rather than by what JKR said in interviews, Charlie must have left Hogwarts at least seven years before the beginning of Harry's first year and Percy's fifth, which would make him at least eight years older than Percy. A book like the Lexicon provides a useful corrective to that sort of error. And JKR is still confused regarding the "missing twenty-four hours"!) Snow: > If she's talking about competing with Steve's book that just sounds absurd! What Potter fan would deny the writer her version? (Everyone would buy her version if they are a Potter fan) Carol responds: I agree with your first sentence. However, I'm not so sure that all Potter fans are as likely to buy her encyclopedia (if she ever gets around to writing it) as they would have if she hadn't brought about this lawsuit. And, as I said, I see no reason to accept her view of her characters as definitive (she's stating her *intentions,* which may or may not have been realized on the printed page, which is subject to interpretation by the reader whether she likes it or not), and if she tells me that Hogwarts has 1,000 students when my arithmetic tells me that it has roughly 280, I'll trust my math over hers. Same with fifteen-year-old James and who knows how many other instances. Snow: > If she's concerned with monetary gain, I feel sad for her and the societies that she feels she could represent (she has more than enough money to suffice). Carol: She claims to be concerned about the loss of money to charity is the Lexicon takes away readers of her encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure that's and excuse and she's really concerned about other people using and interpreting her characters. (I don't think she's claiming that the Lexicon would cut into her profits, or WB's, from the HP books themselves, which is clearly absurd.) Snow: > If she's talking about control, I hope for all our sakes she hits a dead end! Carol responds: That's *exactly* what she's talking about. She wants to control the use and interpretation of her characters and other creations, from Hogwarts to the Sorting Hat. But an author simply doesn't have that right. She has some control over how her actual words are used (though the amount of quoted text that can be permitted is not firmly established and depends on the nature of the secondary work), and WB controls the trademarks (I can't go out and open a store called Severus Snape's Potions Emporium), but a reference book relating to a published work or works is another matter altogether. IOW, I, too, hope she hits a dead end, for the sake of fans and Potter scholars and everyone else whose rights need to be protected by the fair use doctrine. (I'm not talking about fanfic, which will no doubt come up in some future lawsuit, particularly if JKR wins this one. I'm talking about reference works, particularly fan-created, nonscholarly reference works intended for use by fellow fans, not just the Lexicon but any similar works by other authors, whether they're about JKR's books or Ray Bradbury's.) Snow: > I remember sometime back, I believe it was Heidi, (forgive me if I'm wrong) who informed us that we had to be careful in our postings of our verbatim usage. You had to acknowledge JKR, where you found the quote etc. or your post may not be allowable for fear of legality. Carol responds: I'm not a List Elf, so I'm just speaking here as an editor and a former English teacher. I would advise everyone to quote as accurately as possible and to provide the source of the quote simply to avoid accidental plagiarism (an ethical violation, not a legal one) and as an aid to fellow posters who might want to find the quotes, but I seriously doubt that JKR will sue us or even write an angry leter of protest if we paraphrase too closely (assuming that she even reads our posts). No one here is claiming her words as their own. The only problem might be a long post that consists almost wholly of quoted text with no analysis or commentary by the poster, which would, technically, be a violation of copyright. (And, really, I doubt that she would sue the poster even then. It's not as if we were going to publish the quoted passage and be paid for it.) If we're quoting from memory, we should say so. If we're providing an exact quote, we should cite the page reference. But that's a matter of courtesy and ethics, not copyright law. And we can certainly refer to an incident, such as the firing of Trelawney or the murder of Harry's parents, without any citation at all. JKR doesn't own her ideas or her characters ("He's my character!" to the contrary) or the incidents in the books. Only the words are copyrighted. (I wouldn't, for example, quote the Sorting Hat's song in its entirety, only the relevant lines or verses, even though it's most unlikely that she would so me for doing so in a post to a discussion group.) Snow: > Given the currant occurrence, could anyone use our posts (many were beyond excellent) for profit or would those posts also be subjected to similar scrutiny? Carol responds: As I understand it, our words are copyrighted even if we don't file for copyright, so if someone used our posts in a published book intended for profit without asking our permission first, the author of the post would have the right to sue. I'm not sure about the posts being "subjected to similar scrutiny" part. If one of our brilliant posters were to collect his or her posts and present them to a publisher as a collection of critical essays and the publisher decided that they were worthy of publication (or, alternatively, if the poster presented one of his or her analytical posts, with the quotations and paraphrases properly cited, to a scholarly journal) the essays would be protected by the fair use doctrine. If *someone other than the author of the posts* had the temerity to submit those posts for publication, claiming authorship, that would be both plagiarism and a violation of copyright. Snow: > The answer, I'm sure, rests with the result of this trial. Carol: Well, no. Not really. Discussion groups like HPfGu are protected by the Fair Use Doctrine already. It's published works like the Lexicon in printed form that are in jeopardy at the moment. But if the Fair Use Doctrine is made more restrictive and the copyright holder's rights are extended, I will be seriously concerned about the implications for serious scholarship, education, book reviewing, and Internet fansites alike. Carol, half-wishing that she could send JKR on a trip to Majorca with Aunt Marge :-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 20:18:12 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:18:12 -0000 Subject: Three musketeers in Pevear translation Message-ID: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Three-Musketeers/Alexandre- Dumas/e/9780670037797 Alla: Since we mentioned his and his wife translation of War and Peace recently, I thought I will take a look at his translation of Three musketeers in the library. As I said before I cannot say anything good or bad about War and peace translation, but I can certainly say things about this book, lots of good things actually. Somebody mentioned to me quite recently the outdated language in another translation and I was like Huh? I mean when you know book basically by heart, even if in translation, you do not really catch on long and yeah, sometimes boring phrasing. Now I can see the difference when I have Pevear translation to compare with. It is much more exciting and fun to read, the language is, well, yes I guess more modernised. It is all relative of course since I do not know French and cannot really judge which translation is better, but if I were to compare english translations that I read, well, I can definitely say that Pevear translation is much more fun. Cannot say which one is closer to original. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 20:29:14 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:29:14 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve and the great debate on Copyright. In-Reply-To: <81528EF80D194CA69E0C57EE46172610@TeriPC> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Teri Gardner wrote: > < HUGE SNIP> > The judge's request for the two sides to sort it out on their own: I like this idea very much. I personally feel that if SVA and RDR played their cards in a slightly different way (especially RDR, frankly their contemptuous attitude towards JKR and WB prior to the case going before a judge was ridiculous and I feel this is likely THE reason this went as far as it has), this would not be an issue. Alla: I snipped your lovely post since I only want to reply to this small point. Oh more like voice an agreement. I mean, really, nobody disputes now that JKR and WB people requested to see the manuscript, yes? And they were denied it. Yes, I believe that they would not necessarily have gone to court had they been shown the book and at least RDR and SVA would have willingness to add essays to the book, to work with them. Those precourt e-mails, I saw nothing but contempt for JKR's request in it. I think as a matter of courtesy, if nothing else, creator of potterverse is entitled to see the manuscript of the book that is an encyclopedia about her world. I do NOT feel sorry for RDR and SVA, not in the slightest, sorry. But, I do not think that this is such a done deal that they will win either, as I said before I believe that they should, but really it is all up to the judge. Having said that, if JKR and WB loose and decide to appeal ( if no settlement will be reached before), personally I will only applaud it. And no, I usually do not feel that litigation is the best way to go, very far from it. Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 20:30:26 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:30:26 -0000 Subject: Prayers For Lexicon Steve and the great debate on Copyright. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: >> I do NOT feel sorry for RDR and SVA, not in the slightest, sorry. > But, I do not think that this is such a done deal that they will win > either, as I said before I believe that they should, but really it is > all up to the judge. Alla: I meant to say that I do not believe that this is such a done deal that they will LOOSE of course. From catlady at wicca.net Sat Apr 19 21:20:47 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:20:47 -0000 Subject: that lawsuit / concordances / copyright Message-ID: Steve/bboyminn wrote in : << I think it is heart breaking that two people who up until this point has a very cordial relationship, are now at each other's throat using teams of lawyers as weapons. Very sad indeed. >> Hear, hear! It was MY wish that Herself would hire Lexicon Steve as an assistant in writing Her encyclopedia. Damn. (As I read onward, I see that other listies had similar wishes. Your idea of a large book combining the updated Lexicon entries with Rowling's newspaper articles, textbook entries, personal letters, diaries, excerpts from HOGWARTS, A HISTORY, etc is my dream desire.) Dumbledad wrote in : << if that's anything to go by he is/was the biggest squeeing fan-boy in the world. The impression I got was that if JKR had asked him to sacrifice his first-born he'd have thought about it. So how it got to the point where it went to court is beyond me. >> Hear, hear! Lee Truslow wrote in : << Jo testifies >> Magpie wrote in : << Getting more dramatic: >> The NY Times article is where <> and << "The lexicon is filled with errors." >> That *really* irritated me when I heard it on the news. The Lexicon is very accurate, and she has publicly stated so herself: as the CNN article mentioned: << Rowling mentioned his Web site on her own, writing, "This is such a great site that 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). A Web site for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home." >> So now she is contradicting herself. More NYT article: << U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson urged the sides to settle, saying the case reflected an emerging part of copyright law with no clear precedents. >> Hear, hear! Alla wrote in : << I know, maybe I should put the characters in order of alphabet and summarise what all families in [WAR AND PEACE] are about? You think had Lev Tolstoy had he been alive would have been happy with me? Personally I really doubt that and I think that would have been stealing of his work and making money out of it. My opinion of course. >> People write guidebooks to minerals, sometimes to minerals found in the wild in a region, with photographs of the rocks in their natural state and after having been cut and polished, as well as information on the chemistry, geology, and human use of these minerals. People write identification guides to the trees or plants or birds or animals of a region, with photographs or drawings as well as verbal descriptions. Are these writers 'stealing of' Nature 'and making money out of it'? I don't know if anyone has written a guidebook to the characters in the Iliad, but if someone did, were they stealing from Homer to make money? Dumbledad's example of Cruden's Bible Concordance is better than either of my examples. Alla replied to Dumbledad in : << But this is Bible. Who will be copyright holder in this instance? I mean I know you said non-copyright example, but to me it is the key, there is no living person to do so, no? >> I saw your argument that you meant only if Tolstoy were still alive and had kept his copyright. I grudgingly suppose that you, as a lawyer, can define 'stealing' only as taking something from someone who has a legal right to it, as in the old case of a record company that sued one of its under-contract bands for violating a copyright owned by the record company by performing their own original songs in concert. I can't agree with that definition, as I define stealing as taking something from someone who has a *moral* right to it. I even grant that it can make lots of sense to say that the someone's moral right to the something ended with the someone's death. I don't think I would feel much sympathy for a ghost or zombie who came back from death demanding 'Give me back my rent-controlled apartment!' Were you thinking that the writer's moral right to control how hiser output is used ends at hiser death? That didn't occur to me until I was writing this reply, because one of my very good friends more than once buried me under a blizzard of quotes from Mark Twain and Rudyard Kipling stating that the author's copyright should be eternal. If the term limit of copyright was eternal, we not only wouldn't have teen comedy movies that are based on Shakespeare's plays, we wouldn't have most of Shakespeare's plays, because he stole his plots from all over, from Saxo Grammaticus and Girardus Cambrensis and Plutarch's LIVES. Tbe culture would be poorer without Shakespeare's plays, and poorer without ROSENKRANTZ AND GUILDERSTERN ARE DEAD. We wouldn't have The Iliad and all its retellings, because Homer strung together (and probably modified) tales that were already being told. Copyright freezes culture. On the other hand, I agree with my friend that artistic creators deserve some reward for their work and ability, and in our culture the only meaningful reward is money. Limiting copyright to x number of years is a compromise between these two things. But Congress keeps making it longer and longer, because they are bribed by Walt Disney Company, which can't endure to lose the ownership of Mickey Mouse. It would be much better for the culture if Congress passed a law that the copyrights of works and characters created by Walt Disney and his employees in his lifetime were eternal, and the term limit of other copyrights would be dealt with separately. By the way, I get furious with the argument that writers wouldn't bother to write unless they could count on making money from it. Before copyright, writers were so eager for their work to be read that they even put it under the name of more famous writers, such as Aristotle. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Apr 19 21:21:45 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:21:45 -0000 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > But as a courtesy to JKR, and to keep her from appealing the case and > causing who knows what harm to the fair use doctrine and the rights of > fans and scholars alike based on an original work, I think Steve V. > ought to make certain changes (updating the entries, altering the > Sorting Hat entry so that it consists of more commentary and summary > and less quoted material, correcting any errors that JKR considers to > be particularly egregious--admittedly, the few errors she cites, such > as the hypothetical etymology of Alohomora, are minor and could not > have been corrected, JKR to the contrary, by a Google search). Magpie: Maybe this is nitpicky, but just had to say that JKR can't do harm to the fair use doctrine or rights of fans since she's not in charge of the law. The judge is the one who would be ruling on whether this book was okay or not based on what Fair Use already says--at least that's how I understand it works. Her challenging of this book is just a challenge. I doubt it's the first or only one her lawyers have been involved in, even if it's the most publicized. I don't think a judge would have any interest in making a ruling that made it illegal to write reviews or scholarly work or criticism--lots of all three have already been done for HP without any challenge. And the judge isn't going to interpret the law/situation in a way he doesn't really agree to just because it's JKR. I'm also not even so sure that any case like this is able to have such far reaching effects because I think they're all very individual. If she wins because the thing is ultimately considered to add nothing than that's not changing the Fair Use Doctrine--and I don't think it would automatically call into question any reference book based on something fictional even if it had far more analysis in it. I believe of the two sides it's the Stanford Group that's more openly eager to reform the cpoyright law. I don't know whether the arguments on JKR's side (leaving aside irrelevent stuff like whether her own encyclopedia would sell fewer copies or whether she's got writer's block or loves her books like children or whether the book's sloppy or not) are attacking the law itself or just trying to show that the Lexicon fits the law already. If she won it seems like that would just put the next person in the same position as Steve was in when he started writing. A book that more aggressively challenged her own views of characters with essays etc. wouldn't be able to be challenged this way. (I assume the Lexicon actually tries to make its own biases close to the author's so she wouldn't have much trouble with at least that kind of interpretive spin.) I'm just saying that if JKR's team is trying to claim that the Lexicon is simply entertainment like the Seinfeld book that's not attacking much of the Fair Use doctrine. The grey area is more about what this book is, it seems to me, rather than whether Fair Use should be stretched to cover criticism or scholarly works. -m From catlady at wicca.net Sat Apr 19 21:38:09 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:38:09 -0000 Subject: Polygynous cults / student newspaper articles / Warner Bros Message-ID: Alex Hogan wrote in : << Warren Jeffs and his cult of perverts. Marry the girls as soon as they hit puberty, run the young men of the same age out. A geezer pedophile festival. >> Most cultures which practise polygyny don't have many (if any) more women than men. So if their elite men marry (= own) large numbers of women, there aren't enough women to go around; many (sometimes all) young and/or poor men have no wife at all. In theory, the not-enough-women problem could be solved by a very aggressive culture which is always raiding its neighbors to steal women, and steal loot with which to buy women from slave traders, especially if a lot of their men (but few of their women) were killed in self-defense or revenge by the raid-victim communities. However, I have never heard of a culture that managed to have 2 or 3 or 4 times as many [female] wives as [male] husbands community-wide. I have read that the great Zande empire in Africa, whose elite men could have several hundred wives and concubines, dealt with the woman shortage by having the custom that young men, warriors in their twenties, still saving money for the bride-price for a girl, could marry a teen-age boy. I guess that is a way that a culture could have significantly more [female and male] wives than [male] husbands? That marriage ends when the boy is old enough to be a warrior himself. The bride-price paid to the boy's parents is much lower (more affordable) than that paid to a girl's parents, but the other rules, like what a son-in-law gives his parents-in-law on an on-going basis, are the same. The anthropologist wrote 'If the young man is a good son-in-law, he might marry one of their daughters some day.' But I don't remember if the boy-wife has to fetch water and do all the cooking and cleaning and grow the food in her garden like a female wife. Wouldn't that interfere with the boy's training to become a warrior and domestic tyrant when he grows up? So whenever I hear of the various polygynist cultists between the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevadas with a predilection for assigning large numbers of girls and young women to older men, I have wondered what they do with their young men, their own sons. Do they come up with excuses to expel them? Do they send them to other states to get jobs in the outside world? Do they keep a flock of unmarried young men to act as their militia/enforcers, who remain obedient in hope of being given a wife? Jeffs gave a young man a wife at least once, in the case where he was convicted of forcing an underage girl to marry her 19-year-old cousin. It irritates me that these people call themselves polygamists, thus givng polygamy a bad name. Mike Ting wrote in : << Hello friends. I'd like to invite you to read these short articles: (snip) 3. Man becomes pregnant .>> Hi, Mike, did you write these articles? 'Man Becomes Pregnant' is such a National Enquirer headline that I read the article, which is disappointingly plausible but still enjoyable. I dutifully clicked on the Gold and Silver Screen one and found that it was long and scholarly (like a term paper for school), not something I would want to read. Bumblebor wrote in : << I am not the least worried about W.B. In fact, I curse their very name. I think they totaly ruined the HP movies. I felt the magic in the first one, felt ok with the 2nd one. The 3rd movie was the first time in my life I had to force myself not to walk out and demand my money back. The 4th one, well, they cut out so much, still it was viewable and I sat and watched it despite my aprehension. And the 5th movie? I never went to the theater to see it. >> My opinion of the movies is almost exactly opposite to yours. Of course the books are MUCH BETTER than the movies, but to me the first movie was not good; I was terribly disappointed by it. I thought the second movie was less disappointing, but I'm not sure if that was because it was better or because my expectations were lower. The third movie was a delightful surprise because it wasn't a bad movie. To me, it proved that the previous two movies had been the fault of the director rather than of the writer, because this one had the same writer and a different director. The fourth movie was better than the third and the fifth movie was the best so far. To me, the fifth movie was the only one in which the plot changes they made in order to eliminate excess subplots and characters didn't leave big gaudy scars. << They are in it for one thing only, and its not the story, the telling of the story, or the fans. They are in it for greed. >> Well, of course. Time-Warner is a big publically owned corporation. The board of directors and the top executives have a fiduciary duty to make money for the stockholders. They didn't go into business to be Harry Potter fans; they may not even have gone into business to be movie fans. In an enterprise owned by Time-Warner, as such Warner Bros movie studio, the top executives' job assignment is to make money, not to make good or faithful movies. Of course a lot of the people who work for movie studios, even some executives, went into the business in the first place because they loved movies and wanted to make good movies, and they are allowed to do some of what they want to do, either because 'wiser' heads think it will make money, or because the wiser heads figure that spending this money to keep this person happy will lead to making more money in the future. But only a very young employee would have gone into that career because of wanting to turn the Harry Potter books into movies. And, y'know, even the people who want to make good movies don't always have the same idea of what makes a movie 'good' as I do. For example, some of them really believe in movies that have lots of fart jokes and sex jokes. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Apr 19 21:45:07 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:45:07 -0000 Subject: that lawsuit / concordances / copyright In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie wrote in > : > << Getting more dramatic: > > >> > > The NY Times article is where < "sloppy, lazy" work >> and << "The lexicon is filled with errors." >> > > That *really* irritated me when I heard it on the news. > > The Lexicon is very accurate, and she has publicly stated so herself: > as the CNN article mentioned: << Rowling mentioned his Web site on her > own, writing, "This is such a great site that 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). A Web site for the dangerously obsessive; my natural > home." >> > > So now she is contradicting herself. Magpie: Meh. I can't get worked up about that. My very few experiences with the Lexicon didn't leave me feeling it was all that accurate, but perhaps I just ran into entries where Steve's own authorial voice was too strident. I assume there's plenty of accurate information in it, but it was never a place I relied on. But as to this contradiction, I think she was probably making an effort to be nice in the first quote so may have exaggerated to begin with. It's the "web site for the dangerously obsessive" that she's calling her natural home, I think, not claiming that she spends hours poring over the Lexicon. Steve's certainly done a lot of his own contradicting of himself, like sending e-mails saying that one of his goals for the Lexicon is that nobody ever think of publishing an encyclopedia because that's Jo's job and then doing it himself. Not that I think he has to arrange his own life around what she wants if he's not actually infringing on the copyright, of course. But by the same token I see no reason why JKR should be hiring him to be her assistant on her own encyclopedia or not. But that's me--as I said, some of the Lexicon's pov reflected fan-wars to me and besides, I tend to think it's best to give fanboys/girls who desperately want to be personally associated with the author as little encouragement as possible. If he wants to write his own encyclopedia and finds a publisher and it's perfectly legal he should go right ahead and do it without JKR's displeasure stopping him, by he hasn't earned himself a place in her book. Catlady: > People write guidebooks to minerals, sometimes to minerals found in > the wild in a region, with photographs of the rocks in their natural > state and after having been cut and polished, as well as information > on the chemistry, geology, and human use of these minerals. People > write identification guides to the trees or plants or birds or animals > of a region, with photographs or drawings as well as verbal > descriptions. Are these writers 'stealing of' Nature 'and making money > out of it'? > I don't know if anyone has written a guidebook to the characters in > the Iliad, but if someone did, were they stealing from Homer to make > money? Magpie: Whatever one thinks about Steve's books, that's irrelevent. Fiction doesn't work like nature. The issue here is the artificial concept of copyright. Homer doesn't own the copyright to his works, nor does anyone own the copyright of the Bible. It's only fairly recently that what we call fanfic shouldn't be perfectly legal, but it's not now, as you say. Some authors and others consider even free fanfic to be immoral and "stealing." I don't agree. I don't consider it stealing-- but I know if it were published for money it would violate copyright laws. The encyclopedia doesn't feel to me like a violation of what I understand copyright to be, but I'm not sure whether that means that it isn't. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 23:05:15 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:05:15 -0000 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > But as a courtesy to JKR, and to keep her from appealing the case and causing who knows what harm to the fair use doctrine and the rights of fans and scholars alike based on an original work, I think Steve V. ought to make certain changes (updating the entries, altering the Sorting Hat entry so that it consists of more commentary and summary and less quoted material, correcting any errors that JKR considers to be particularly egregious--admittedly, the few errors she cites > > Magpie: > Maybe this is nitpicky, but just had to say that JKR can't do harm to the fair use doctrine or rights of fans since she's not in charge the law. The judge is the one who would be ruling on whether this book was okay or not based on what Fair Use already says--at least that's how I understand it works. Her challenging of this book is just a challenge. Carol responds: Possibly I was a bit careless with my wording here. Mea culpa. However, my point was that if the printed Lexicon in its current form duplicates the entries on the website (minus essays, illustrations, links, etc.), it contains entries that need to be updated, pruned, or otherwise revised (e.g., the Snape and Sorting Hat entries). Steve V. would be wise, IMO, to make the needed corrections (better late than never) by updating the entries, eliminating overlong quotations like the one in the sorting Hat entry, and otherwise revising the book to make it more acceptable to JKR. (I agree with Alla that RDR should have submitted the manuscript to JKR for her review and suggestions. She could at that point have noted any entries that she considered to be "plagiarism.") RDR seems to have given Steve an unrealistic deadline, without adequate time to make the revisions he himself, and JKR, considered necessary. Had they done so, the case might never have gone to court. BTW, JKR herself has evidently stated objections to the entries on Peeves and Sirius Black, which I haven't examined yet. Those articles might be good ones to sample with regard to the validity of the pie chart. If she has any *valid* objections, even if they're not actual violations of copyright, he would be wise to make those revisions as well. My point, since it was apparently clear, is that it may not be too late, even now, to avoid prolonged litigation and appeals. All JKR needs to do is agree to drop the suit if Steve makes certain changes to the manuscript before publication. Bu, of course, Steve and RDR would have to agree to cooperate. More important, the judge's ruling on this particular case will not in itself rewrite the Fair Use Doctrine (which, as he says himself, is difficult to interpret in this and many other instances) but it *will* set a precedent that other judges in other cases can follow. And, to be nitpicky myself, JKR is not challenging the Fair Use Doctrine per se (though she seems to believe that an author's right to her own creations is absolute). She's challenging the Lexicon's claim to be covered under the Fair Use Doctrine. And that, actually, is what's at stake. *Is* a reference work based on an original work (whether or not it contains errors) protected under the Fair Use Doctrine? And how much of that reference work can be quotation or close paraphrase and how much must be summary, analysis, or inference? If all the entries were like the one on the Sorting Hat, JKR would have a very strong case, and the pie chart would be valid. As it is, I think her case is weak, and the few cases of copyright infringement (such as the Sorting Hat entry) can be easily remedied. Magpie: I don't think a judge would have any interest in making a ruling that made it illegal to write reviews or scholarly work or criticism--lots of all three have already been done for HP without any challenge. And the judge isn't going to interpret the law/situation in a way he doesn't really agree to just because it's JKR. Carol: True. But he's also aware that any decision he makes is likely to be appealed and will certainly set a precedent. If a work like the Lexicon can be challenged by the author, so can any book based on another book that doesn't have explicit permission from the author. And authors might just clamp down on what they do and do not authorize. As it stands, an author has the right to write or approve an abridgement (because an abridgement would be entirely her own words arranged as she wrote them but with omissions) but not a work of literary criticism (which is considered fair use as long as it doesn't quote substantial extracts without permission). The Lexicon lies somewhere between the two in a grey area of the Fair Use Doctrine which, for better or worse, a ruling in this case would help to define. Magpie: > I'm also not even so sure that any case like this is able to have such far reaching effects because I think they're all very individual. If she wins because the thing is ultimately considered to add nothing than that's not changing the Fair Use Doctrine--and I don't think it would automatically call into question any reference book based on something fictional even if it had far more analysis in it. Carol: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if JKR wins because the Lexicon is judged to be mostly JKR's own words, the ruling will have no effect on the Fair Use Doctrine (which is already decided on a case-by-case basis). I don't entirely agree because books like the Lexicon are not covered by the Fair Use Doctrine as it now stands, which is why the judge can see both sides and recommends that they settle out of court. The judge's decision would be the first of its kind, and it would indicate whether Lexicon-style reference books (in a printed form intended for publication) are or are not acceptable. And the judge will have to decide just how much verbatim quotation or close paraphrase is allowable in such a book. I don't think that the Fair Use Doctrine in itself is being challenged (though perhaps JKR and WB wish that it didn't exist and that her--or their--rights to her work were absolute). It's the *interpretation* of the Fair Use Doctrine as its currently formulated that's at stake here. Magpie: I believe of the two sides it's the Stanford Group that's more openly eager to reform the cpoyright law. Carol responds: And with good reason, given the grey areas and the current confusion over whether publication on the Internet constitutes publication in the usual sense. A law formulated in 1976 needs to be reexamined in light of the very different conditions that exist in 2008. And that reexamination and reformulation needs to take place regardless of who wins this case or whether it's settled out of court. Magpie: I don't know whether the arguments on JKR's side (leaving aside irrelevent stuff like whether her own encyclopedia would sell fewer copies or whether she's got writer's block or loves her books like children or whether the book's sloppy or not) are attacking the law itself or just trying to show that the Lexicon fits the law already. Carol responds: I don't think that even JKR's lawyers would challenge the law itself (but given that Disney is trying to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse in perpetuity, I could be wrong!). They're just trying to show that the Lexicon doesn't fall under Fair Use as currently formulated. Again, the amount of quoted material and close paraphrase that can be used in a secondary work depends on the nature of the secondary work. And books like the Lexicon which are partly informative, partly interpretive, don't seem to be covered at all. (Sidenote: I tried to find out whether true concordances, which use a great deal more of the author's own words than the Lexicon does, are considered fair use, but I couldn't find any information. I certainly wouldn't create one without the permission of the author, however!) Magpie: > If she won it seems like that would just put the next person in the same position as Steve was in when he started writing. Carol responds: I'm not sure what you mean. IMO, if she won, "the next person" would be forced to obtain permission not only for quoted material that would normally fall under fair use but even to write and publish the book. Magpie: > A book that more aggressively challenged her own views of characters with essays etc. wouldn't be able to be challenged this way. (I assume the Lexicon actually tries to make its own biases close to the author's so she wouldn't have much trouble with at least that kind of interpretive spin.) Carol responds: I'm not so sure. Since she regards her own views as definitive, claiming that the characters don't exist outside her imagination (an absurd claim, IMO--they exist on the pages of the printed books and, through the imaginative and "transformative" process of reading--in the imaginations of her readers as well), so I wouldn't be surprised if she challenged a book that "wrongly" interpreted her characters. But that's neither here nor there--the Lexicon, as a reference book, tries to keep interpretation to a minimum. It's intended to inform, not entertain. It's not even intended to shape the reader's perception of the books the way a critical analysis of Voldemort's motives or flower symbolism in the HP books would do. > > I'm just saying that if JKR's team is trying to claim that the Lexicon is simply entertainment like the Seinfeld book that's not attacking much of the Fair Use doctrine. Carol responds: If that's what they're claiming, they've pretty much lost the case already, don't you think? But as I said, I don't think they're attacking the Fair Use Doctrine per se. They're challenging the claim that the Lexicon is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. And that boils down to whether the Lexicon is primarily a reference book and, if so, how much quoted material (properly attributed) it can *fairly* use without violating copyright law. Magpie: The grey area is more about what this book is, it seems to me, rather than whether Fair Use should be stretched to cover criticism or scholarly works. Carol: Fair Use doesn't need to be "stretched" to cover criticism or scholarly works. Those kinds of books (along with the needs of teachers, reviewers, etc.) are the reasons why Fair Use exists. Without it, the author's rights (unless he or she sold some of those rights, as JKR did with the movie rights) would be absolute. But, yes. The grey area involves books like the Lexicon that don't fall under categories already specified in the Fair Use Doctrine. But Fair Use is almost certain to be reformulated in the near future, and a precedent that narrows rather than expanding its protection, one that privileges the rights of the original author over those of the authors of secondary works, would have implications for free expression that could mean more lawsuits and more restrictions on fans and scholars alike. It's a scary prospect, for me, at least. BTW, I came across a reference to a book called "Brand Name Bullies: The Quest to Own and Control Culture." Is anyone familiar with this case, which seems to discuss not only trademark ownership like that of WB but also copyright? It wouldn't discuss the JKR vs. RDR case since it's too new, but does it contain anything relevant to our discussion? Carol, who agrees with Alla that RDR behaved badly before the trial, but thinks that the important question involves the content of the book and whether it falls under Fair Use, not the behavior of anyone involved in the case > > -m > From catlady at wicca.net Sat Apr 19 23:13:17 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:13:17 -0000 Subject: Tolkien's names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol wrote in : << Tolkien's names ... [a]re based on invented languages with a solid foundation in linguistic principles. Sindarin is based on Welsh and Quenya (Noldorin) on Finnish. (Icelandic comes into play somewhere, but I can't remember.) >> Icelandic for the Dwarves. Two websites of annotated Voluspa (neither as good as one I once bookmarked that isn't there anymore): says of Strophe 9: <> I didn't know it was called the Dvergatal. (Is that Dwar-gatalog?) There are a lot of familiar names in it, such as Durin, Dvalin, Dain, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Thrain, Thorin, and Thror, and how about Gandalf? (ouch! yellow writing on black background) from which I copied the stanzas at hand, below, has all the names clickable, from which I now quote: Durin: Meaning: "Sleepy"? or "Door Gardian"? Dvalin: Meaning: "Numb" or "Dawdler" Bombur: Meaning: "Rude One" Vit: Meaning: "Wise" Eikinskjaldi: Meaning "Oak Shield" Draupnir: Meaning: "Dropper" (Catlady says: or "Dripper") Fjalar: Meaning: "One who hides?" Catlady says: Some of these names are the same as Disney's Seven Dwarfs: Dopey ("Numb"or "Dawdler"), Grumpy ("Rude One"), Doc ("Wise"), Happy, Bashful ("One who hides"), Sneezy ("Dripper"), Sleepy ("Sleepy"). 9. Then sought the gods | their assembly-seats, The holy ones, | and council held, To find who should raise | the race of dwarfs Out of Brimir's blood | and the legs of Blain. 10. There was Motsognir | the mightiest made Of all the dwarfs, | and Durin next; Many a likeness | of men they made, The dwarfs in the earth, | as Durin said. 11. Nyi and Nithi, | Northri and Suthri, Austri and Vestri, | Althjof, Dvalin, Nar and Nain, | Niping, Dain, Bifur, Bofur, | Bombur, Nori, An and Onar, | Ai, Mjothvitnir. 12. Vigg and Gandalf | Vindalf, Thrain, Thekk and Thorin, | Thror, Vit and Lit, Nyr and Nyrath,-- | now have I told-- Regin and Rathsvith-- | the list aright. 13. Fili, Kili, | Fundin, Nali, Hepti, Vili, | Hannar, Sviur, (Billing, Bruni, | Bildr and Buri,) Frar, Hornbori, | Fr?g and Loni, Aurvang, Jari, | Eikinskjaldi. 14. The race of the dwarfs | in Dvalin's throng Down to Lofar | the list must I tell; The rocks they left, | and through wet lands They sought a home | in the fields of sand. 15. There were Draupnir | and Dolgthrasir, Hor, Haugspori, | Hlevang, Gloin, Dori, Ori, | Duf, Andvari, Skirfir, Virfir, | Skafith, Ai. 16. Alf and Yngvi, | Eikinskjaldi, Fjalar and Frosti, | Finn and Ginnar; So for all time | shall the tale be known, The list of all | the forbears of Lofar. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 23:30:23 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:30:23 -0000 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use (corretions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > My point, since it was apparently clear, is that it may not be too late, even now, to avoid prolonged litigation and appeals. Carol again: "Apparently unclear," I meant. :-0 Carol earlier: > As it stands, an author has the right to write or approve an abridgement (because an abridgement would be entirely her own words arranged as she wrote them but with omissions) but not a work of literary criticism (which is considered fair use as long as it doesn't quote substantial extracts without permission). Carol again: Before anyone jumps on me for stating that a writer can't write literary criticism of her own work, that's not what I meant to say. I meant that an author has the right to create her own abridgement or authorize someone else to do it because the abridgement is her own words in shortened form, but she doesn't have the right to authorize or refuse to authorize literary criticism (meaning literary analysis) whether she agrees with the critic's interpretation or not. As long as the literary critic confines the quotations within reasonable limits (which will vary according to the nature of the article--something along the lines of the Gollum article I referred to earlier will require substantial side-by-side extracts from two editions of the same book) and doesn't claim the author's words as his own (which can happen with an unattributed close paraphrase that picks up the original author's phrasing without quotation marks), the literary critic is protected by fair use. Substantial extracts, however, require permission. Carol, apologizing for not catching and rewriting the unclear passage (and correcting the misleading typo) before hitting Send From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 23:37:03 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:37:03 -0000 Subject: Tolkien's names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > << Tolkien's names ... [a]re based on invented languages with a solid foundation in linguistic principles. Sindarin is based on Welsh and Quenya (Noldorin) on Finnish. (Icelandic comes into play somewhere, but I can't remember.) >> Catlady replied: > Icelandic for the Dwarves. > I didn't know it was called the Dvergatal. (Is that Dwar-gatalog?) > > There are a lot of familiar names in it, such as Durin, Dvalin, Dain, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Thrain, Thorin, and Thror, and how about Gandalf? Carol responds: Thank you! My apologies for snipping your interesting and informative post. I have only one thing to add, and that's the etymology of Gandalf: Wand elf. Carol, who was always more partial to the Elves, especially the Sindar, than the Dwarves From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 19 23:52:45 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:52:45 -0000 Subject: Is the Lexicon offline? Message-ID: I just tried to access the Lexicon to check out the Sirius Black and Peeves articles (also Chinese Fireball), all specifically referred to by JKR, to see if there was anything approaching "wholesale theft" or quoted material without quotation marks, and got an Internal Service Error. Has Steve V. taken the Lexicon offline? Carol, who has probably been spending too much time on this topic in any case From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Sun Apr 20 00:06:21 2008 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:06:21 -0000 Subject: Is the Lexicon offline? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi All, "Carol" asked: >>> I just tried to access the Lexicon [...] Has Steve V. taken the Lexicon offline? <<< I can access it, but it is very very slow. Who'd have thought JKR had enough technical prowess to take the site to its knees ;-) Cheers, Dumbledad From bumbledor at comcast.net Sun Apr 20 02:04:05 2008 From: bumbledor at comcast.net (bumbledor) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:04:05 -0400 Subject: how big is it? Message-ID: <000601c8a28a$d1279d40$6401a8c0@bumbledor> Anyone have any idea how big Steves lexicon is? I just found the program that will allow me to copy it to my HD.. LOL! Think I might snag a copy for "historical" archive purposes. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Apr 20 04:10:47 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:10:47 -0000 Subject: Literary quiz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > Potioncat: > Not so long ago I came across a list of famous un-read books from > literature---you know, books everyone's supposed to know, but > supposedly no one really reads? I had read most of them. And some of > them many times. > Could you share where we could find that list? I've been reading quite a few quotes from Emerson and I realized that I had never read any of his works..so....I'll see what the library has! Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Apr 20 04:14:33 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:14:33 -0000 Subject: any classicists on this board? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > susanmcgee wrote: > > > > I recently have been trying to unravel an issue/answer a question > and wonder if any of you have any insight into it. > > > > In high school, I was taught a Latin phrase. I was told that it was > an example of the Delphic oracle's ambiguity. The phrase was: > > > > Ibis Redibis in Numquam Armis Peribis. As many of you many know, in > Latin, word order is irrelevant. SO....the phrase EITHER means > > "You will go, you will return, you will never perish in arms" OR it > means "You will go, you will never return, you will perish in arms." > > > > > > I was talking to my partner about this and she looked puzzled and > > asked if it were from the Delphic oracle why was it in Latin? > > > > > > I found this explanation > > Delphi Oracle - Syntactic Ambiguity > > A famous Latin translation of one of the prophecies of the oracle at > Delphi reads "Ibis, redibis numquam peribis in bello." Two different > translations and interpretations may be provided for this sentence. > 1. "You'll leave, and you shall never return as you will perish in > the war." 2. "You'll leave and return, and you shall not perish in > the war." Very close to what I had been taught. > > > Carol responds: > The article that you cited (which I also found) gives you your answer. > The often quoted words are a translation that preserves the ambiguity > of the original. > > I'm not a classicist, but I know a bit about English literature and > history, as well as the background of particular English writers > (especially Shelley) and their education. > > Here's my take on why the prophecies made by the Delphic Oracle (the > Pythia, obviously not the same person from generation to generation) > are frequently given in Latin. (Please note that I'm speculating, not > giving an authoritative answer and will happily accept correction.) In > the nineteenth century and earlier, educated Englishmen were quite > likely to know Latin but less likely to know Greek, or at least, to > know it less well than they knew Latin. They might, for example, have > read Sophocles's "Oidipos Tyrannos" (I don't read Greek and may have > the transliteration wrong) in its Latin translation, "Oedipus Rex" > (the title retained in most English translations but obviously not the > original title). English writers of this period often referred to the > Greek gods by their Roman names in translations from the original > Greek, as if the Greeks worshipped Jupiter and Venus and Mercury > rather than Zeus and Aphrodite and Hermes. I think they would expect > their readers to be familiar with the Oracle's pronouncements in Latin > rather than the original Greek (unless they were writing for fellow > Oxford or Cambridge graduates). > > At any rate, the Oracle at Delphi dates back to prehistoric times, and > the prophecies that we have date from, IIRC, the seventh or eighth > century B.C. to Roman times. (Croesus died in 546 B.C. and Pyrrhus in > 272 B.C.) Until Greece was conquered by the Romans in 146 B.C., the > prophecies (including those made to Croesus and Pyrrhus) would have > been made in Greek. It's possible, even probable, that they continued > to be made in Greek even after Greece was conquered. After all, the > Romans respected and imitated Greek culture, and they were more likely > to learn Greek than the Greeks were to learn Latin. (The language of > Greece and the entire eastern half of the Roman Empire, as you > probably know, was Koine Greek, not Latin.) > > Carol, who agrees that a Google search on the topic is frustrating and > finds that her own books aren't much help, either, unfortunately > So, I've finally unraveled some of this. Greek was lost during the Middle Ages in Europe (was only read in the Eastern part of the former Roman Empire. Until the Renaissance, in the western part of Europe, almost all educated people read Latin but not Greek. All their access to Greek writings was through Latin translations. Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 20 04:39:01 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:39:01 -0000 Subject: Literary quiz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > I've been reading quite a few quotes from Emerson and I realized that I had never read any of his works..so....I'll see what the library has! Carol responds: I know that tastes differ, but I always found Emerson to be sleep-inducing. Do keep an eye out for his transparent eyeball reference, though! Carol, thinking of a cross between an Invisibility Cloak and Moody's magical eyeball From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 20 04:41:58 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:41:58 -0000 Subject: any classicists on this board? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > So, I've finally unraveled some of this. > > Greek was lost during the Middle Ages in Europe (was only read in the Eastern part of the former Roman Empire. Until the Renaissance, in the western part of Europe, almost all educated people read Latin but not Greek. All their access to Greek writings was through Latin translations. > Carol responds: Exactly. Carol, apologizing for the "one-worder" and promising to curb her unfortunate tendency to write short posts From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 20 04:48:22 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:48:22 -0000 Subject: Is the Lexicon offline? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > I just tried to access the Lexicon to check out the Sirius Black and > Peeves articles (also Chinese Fireball), all specifically referred to > by JKR, to see if there was anything approaching "wholesale theft" or > quoted material without quotation marks, and got an Internal Service > Error. > > Has Steve V. taken the Lexicon offline? Carol again: Never mind. It's back online. Must have been a glitch of some sort. Carol, deciding to look up "Chinese fireball" but to leave the rest pro cras From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 20 14:36:18 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:36:18 -0000 Subject: Another Summary of Fair Use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > I'm not so sure. Since she regards her own views as definitive, > claiming that the characters don't exist outside her imagination (an > absurd claim, IMO--they exist on the pages of the printed books and, > through the imaginative and "transformative" process of reading--in > the imaginations of her readers as well), so I wouldn't be surprised > if she challenged a book that "wrongly" interpreted her characters. Magpie: That would be an amazing thing to see, I admit. I just wanted to make a comment on that one quote of JKR's, which I saw elsewhere, and say that while I think she's gone overboard in her control of the characters too sometimes, I doubt she meant something as bizarre as it sounds in that one line. I assume when she said the things didn't exist outside her imagination she just meant that any entry Steve wrote had to go back to her imagination and her words because that's where they were born. Iow, if he was writing down info on Snape he'd have to go to her words because it's not like there was a real Snape somewhere he could look up. But the choice of words is kind of interesting, that she'd put it like that. One might be tempted to consider it a slip where she's revealing how she really feels about them! However, I'm responding to that quote because I actually recently saw somebody make the other interpretation of it--that she was saying all these characters only exist in *her* imagination despite the fact that we've all read the books or seen movies or heard about them so that now they exist in all our imaginations--and this person actually ocnsidered that a good thing! They seemed to wish JKR could take people to court to force them to have the same opinions on the characters that she had because she got to decide what they thought. Just had to mention it because I thought that was completely bizarre! > Carol responds: > If that's what they're claiming, they've pretty much lost the case > already, don't you think? But as I said, I don't think they're > attacking the Fair Use Doctrine per se. They're challenging the claim > that the Lexicon is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. Magpie: Yes, I agree that's what they're doing, challenging whether it's protected by it to begin with. And you could be right that as a reference book it is protected, period. > Magpie: > The grey area is more about what this book is, it seems to me, rather > than whether Fair Use should be stretched to cover criticism or > scholarly works. > > Carol: > Fair Use doesn't need to be "stretched" to cover criticism or > scholarly works. Magpie: Yes, that's what I was saying. That it's not about stretching, it's about proving that the Lexicon book already falls into a protected category or an unprotected one. Scholarly works and criticism are already protected. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 20 14:55:40 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:55:40 -0000 Subject: Neil Gaiman on the JKR/SVA case Message-ID: Because Neil's always great (imo), here he is talking about his thoughts on his own unauthorized books (written about his stuff and stuff he's written) and the crazy way things get reported: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/ -m From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 20 15:44:26 2008 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 20 Apr 2008 15:44:26 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/20/2008, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1208706266.20.16823.m52@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 20, 2008 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 20 17:40:27 2008 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 20 Apr 2008 17:40:27 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/20/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1208713227.10.5103.m56@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 20, 2008 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 20 23:20:41 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:20:41 -0000 Subject: Neil Gaiman on the JKR/SVA case In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Because Neil's always great (imo), here he is talking about his > thoughts on his own unauthorized books (written about his stuff and > stuff he's written) and the crazy way things get reported: > > http://journal.neilgaiman.com/ > > -m > Alla: I love Neil ( except when he writes scripts about Beowulf that is LOL), but seriously I do love reading his journal very very much and I love his books. I love the way he expresses his opinion on the matter. I do not agree with everything he wrote, but I mean, really if he as a writer would be flattered, that to me is the key. If the creator of the world is happy to grant permission, sure why not. I am more disagreeable about his unathorised books, hehe. Although again I did not read those books, so maybe if I read them, I thought they add enough stuff to be perfectly fine. From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Apr 21 05:29:51 2008 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 05:29:51 -0000 Subject: Self-Evaluation (was Re: Harry Haters...) In-Reply-To: <20030603142317.31234.qmail@web21202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Lynn: > > May I respectfully say that you probably will > change your mind when you have a child. ;) It's > a whole 'nuther universe at times and you'll be > amazed how your attitudes change when that little > bundle arrives. Uh, yes.... We have absolutely no qualms about censoring our children's reading, monitoring what movies they watch, banning commercial television totally, banning nintendo, gameboy, weii etc. Books, movies, etc. are very powerful, and have profound effects on the imagination and spirit of children. We not only ban stuff that is excessively violent, but all kinds of stuff that children consume that is banal, cynical, and disrespectful. Although JKR is a Christian, and not a wiccan/pagan, there is no mention of God, nor going to church in the HP universe. I think the idea that she glorifies witchcraft/wizardry (any more than Tolkien or Lewis did) is silly. But if I were a devout Christian, I might worry. >From my viewpoint, the HP universe values love, compassion, caring, fighting for justice, family, parenting and taking the consequences for incorrect choices. People are allowed to be complex. There is almost no cynicism. Life is full of joy, tragedy, and the quiet satisfaction of sitting down with family and friends. The adult couple relationships we see (Fleur and Bill, Molly and Arthur, James and Lily, Remus and Tonks, Tonks' parents, even Lucius and Narcissa and Vernon and Lily). Child mistreatment and neglect are portrayed as wrong. JKR's works embody the values I'd like to see my children embrace, so that's why they are allowed to read them. It's fine for some parents to decide otherwise However, I personally do READ the books before I ban them. Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 14:41:59 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:41:59 -0000 Subject: That case and that book Message-ID: Hmmm, I thought I saw Steve's book among court's filings on Justia. Then I started doubting myself that it cannot be a public record and I could not find it anyways. Then I saw this link on Leaky. docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new- york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/2.html I cannot be SURE of course that this is a complete manuscript, but it looks like one to me. Is it? Curious. Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 15:18:30 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:18:30 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Hmmm, I thought I saw Steve's book among court's filings on Justia. > Then I started doubting myself that it cannot be a public record and I > could not find it anyways. Then I saw this link on Leaky. > > docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new- > york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/2.html > > I cannot be SURE of course that this is a complete manuscript, but it > looks like one to me. Is it? Curious. zgirnius: The intro (key to bibliographic references) and entries covering the first few letters were available on Justia. Could that be what you are seeing? It would not be the whole thing. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 15:28:57 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:28:57 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > zgirnius: > The intro (key to bibliographic references) and entries covering the > first few letters were available on Justia. Could that be what you are > seeing? It would not be the whole thing. > Alla: Well, sure it is possible, but it looks like 236 pages. If it is not whole thing, it sure is a lot. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 19:59:39 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:59:39 +0800 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480CF22B.7040708@yahoo.com> This weekend, on a visit to a bookstore (a rare treat, as there are very few well-stocked English bookstores in Taiwan), I perused a number of guides, encyclopedias and concordances, including the following: Paul Ford, Companion to Narnia Christin Ditchfield, A Family Guide to Narnia David Day, The Illustrated Tolkien Encyclopedia David Day, The Tolkien Bestiary Michael Drout, J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment Michael Perry, Untangling Tolkien George Beahm, The Essential Tolkien Sourcebook: A Fan's Guide Lois Gresh (herself an SF and fantasy author), The Fan's Guide to The Spiderwick Chronicles (specifically bills itself as "unauthorized"). Also by Lois Gresh, The Ultimate Unauthorized Eragon Guide A guide to Larry Niven's Ringworld, the details of which I forgot to jot down. And two from my own collection: J. E. A. Tyler, The New [not any more] Tolkien Companion Robert Foster, The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth And specifically HP-related: Kristina Benson, The Unofficial Harry Potter Encyclopedia Colin Duriez, The Unauthorised Harry Potter Companion David Colbert, The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter Aubrey Malone, An A-Z of Harry Potter And of course never far from mind is the unparalleled Encyclopedia of Arda, the amazing online Tolkien encyclopedia (also available for sale on CD-ROM) that is what Steve Vander Ark's site could only dream of being. I don't know about the authorized status of anything I looked at (except those specifically calling themselves unauthorized), and I know both the Tolkien and the Lewis estates are pretty aggressive at protecting their intellectual property. But after perusing the Justitia document Alla linked to, I'm left scratching my head and wondering where the alleged grey area is in regard to the RDR/SVA guide. My own eye can't find any relevant distinction from any of the guides I browsed through. And Steve's work appears to contain fewer verbatim citations than either Foster's Guide to Middle-Earth (though I'm pretty sure believe that is specifically an authorized work) or the Encyclopedia of Arda. Fewer, in fact, from what I could tell, than Benson's "unofficial" HP encyclopedia. Can anyone enlighten me on what's so grey about this case? And why JKR doesn't seem much bothered by any of the other unauthorized HP guides? CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 20:09:11 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:11 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Hmmm, I thought I saw Steve's book among court's filings on Justia. > Then I started doubting myself that it cannot be a public record and I > could not find it anyways. Then I saw this link on Leaky. > > docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new- > york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/2.html > > I cannot be SURE of course that this is a complete manuscript, but it > looks like one to me. Is it? Curious. > > Alla > Carol responds: First, I love the title of this thread. "What are that case and that book doing in your head, Potter?" Second, thanks, Alla, for mentioning Justia, which I'd never heard of before. I went to the Justia home page, did a search for Lexicon, and found this chronological summary of the case with all sorts of links to court dockets, etc. (It may be the same URL you gave us earlier with http://news. added, but links don't work on Yahoo without the http:// and all that.) There's also a link to other cases involving alleged copyright violation, which might or might not be useful to anyone with time to pursue the subject. justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/ I didn't follow all the links, but it certainly looks as if all the relevant documents are there. As for a complete transcript of the testimony, I don't know. I didn't do a thorough site search. Interestingly, the Lexicon is described as "an unauthorized compendium of Harry Potter facts, plots, etc." Since "compendium" can mean either a summary or abstract of a larger work )or field of knowledge) or a list or a compilation (a document composed of materials from other documents), the description seems fairly accurate. (If it were authorized, even unofficially, like the Internet version, there wouldn't be a lawsuit.) So how much quoted material (properly cited) can an "unauthorized compendium" contain? That's the question, and there's no clearcut answer, either in the Fair Use Doctrine itself or in legal precedent. I hope that the judge's decision makes the "gray area" a little less gray (or opaque). BTW, I read the Lexicon entries on Chinese Fireball, Sirius Black, and Peeves (all specifically mentioned by JKR without finding a single instance of either copyright violation or plagiarism. In fact, the "Chinese Fireball" entry is merely a list of canon "facts" (appearance, habitat, etc.) in the same format used for all the other dragons. There's not the faintest hint of plagiarism, and the fact that she invented it (It no longer exists solely in her imagination) is irrelevant. The Sirius Black entry is also carefully put together, and, unlike the Snape entry, is up to date except that a cross reference still lists him as having been born in 1958 or '59 and there's no reference to his appearance as a dead person summoned by the Resurrection Stone in DH. There is, however, an extensive page of quotations related to Black that JKR could reasonably ask Steve V. to eliminate, condense, or incorporate into the article proper. Similarly, the Peeves entry includes a rather large portion of (properly cited) quoted material (compiled by someone named Lori Damerell, not by Steve V. if it matters) which JKR could reasonably request be eliminated, condensed or revised. At no point, however, is there any actual plagiarism. Steve V. is not claiming JKR's work as his own, and all quotations and paraphrases are properly attributed. Carol, wishing that she could edit the Lexicon, request revisions from Steve V., edit the revisions, and submit the revised work for JKR's approval (with reasonable compensation, of course ) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 20:21:05 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:21:05 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: There's also a link to other cases involving alleged copyright violation, which might or might not be useful to anyone with time to pursue the subject. > > justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/ > Carol again: What the--? as Snape would say. I specifically included "http://news." in the URL I copied and pasted (I'll bet Alla did, too! Sorry, Alla!), but it didn't appear in the post. I guess you'll just have to copy and paste the URL and type that part at the beginning. Or do what I did and go to the site's homepage at http://www.justia.com/ and type Lexicon in the search box. BTW, Lee, it's justia, not justitia. Carol, hoping that http://www shows up in the URLs and imagining the gaps in the post if it doesn't From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 20:54:19 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:54:19 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: <480CF22B.7040708@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee wrote: > > This weekend, on a visit to a bookstore (a rare treat, as there are very few well-stocked English bookstores in Taiwan), I perused a number of guides, encyclopedias and concordances, including the following: > David Day, The Illustrated Tolkien Encyclopedia > David Day, The Tolkien Bestiary > Michael Drout, J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical > Assessment > George Beahm, The Essential Tolkien Sourcebook: A Fan's Guide > Lois Gresh (herself an SF and fantasy author), The Fan's Guide to The Spiderwick Chronicles (specifically bills itself as "unauthorized"). > Also by Lois Gresh, The Ultimate Unauthorized Eragon Guide Carol responds: I would think that the fan guides and encyclopedias would be most relevant, particularly those that are unauthorized. The question is, how much copyrighted material do they contain and how much, if any (for example, the illustrations) was used with permission. (an author can write to the permissions editor of the publisher of the original work and request permission to include, say, an illustration or a song or poem, without obtaining authorization from the copyright holder to write the work itself. The book will indicate somewhere that the material is copyrighted, mention the copyright holder, and include the words, "used with permission.") Sometimes, permission also requires the payment of a fee. The "Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment," sounds like a different kind of work altogether, a compendium of critical analysis of articles and essays that would themselves be copyrighted and require permission to use in an anthology, not from Tolkien's estate but from the author or publisher of the article. The articles or essays would have been protected by fair use when they were originally published, but an editor or compiler couldn't use them without permission. Lee K: > And specifically HP-related: > > Kristina Benson, The Unofficial Harry Potter Encyclopedia > Colin Duriez, The Unauthorised Harry Potter Companion > David Colbert, The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter > Aubrey Malone, An A-Z of Harry Potter Carol: The first two would certainly be worth comparing to the Lexicon. Why not compare their entries on, say, Sirius Black or Peeves or the Sorting Hat (the first two actually mentioned by JKR) to compare the amount of quotation involved? In the case of the Sirius Black Lexicon article, you need to follow a link to a separate page of quotations involving SB. > Lee K: > But after perusing the Justitia document Alla linked to, I'm left scratching my head and wondering where the alleged grey area is in regard to the RDR/SVA guide. My own eye can't find any relevant distinction from any of the guides I browsed through. And Steve's work > appears to contain fewer verbatim citations than than Benson's "unofficial" HP encyclopedia. > > Can anyone enlighten me on what's so grey about this case? And why JKR doesn't seem much bothered by any of the other unauthorized HP guides? Carol responds: I've pointed out a few articles in the Lexicon that do seem to contain an inordinate amount of (properly cited) quoted material, though no plagiarism that I can see, and certainly the claim that 91 percent of the site consists of JKR's word is false. Even 50 percent is stretching it, and I'm not including critical essays that probably wouldn't appear in the print version of the Lexicon. Since I don't have access to any of the books you cited (I do have some Tolkien books, but they're all critical analysis of some sort), I can't compare them myself. So my question to you is, do the books you cited, particularly the two unauthorized HP encyclopedias, contain anything along the lines of http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/siriussez.htm which contains, for example, a long extract from SWM, along with a number of other quotations and no critical commentary? The article itself falls within acceptable guidelines, IMO, meaning that it's covered by Fair Use, but pages like this one constitute what I consider to be the gray area. Carol, using American spelling for "gray area" though I like "grey" better From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 23:46:51 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:46:51 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > The question is, how much copyrighted material do they contain > and how much, if any (for example, the illustrations) was used > with permission. Goddlefrood: Never being one to come into a legal discussion unprepared, I have to point out first that it appears the focus of the complaint is in respect of breach of trademark, rather than breach of copyright. Obviously having said that copyright plays its part. The characters of the HP series, particularly the main ones, are trademarked by Warner Bros. The evidence of breach of copyright that has come out during the course of the evidential hearing appears to me to be somewhat of a side issue. The portions of the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Lanham Act upon which the Plaintiffs (outmoded per Lord Woolfe, of course) rely are: ?. 101 - Definitions (as pertinent): 'A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term "compilation" includes collective works.' 'A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".' Relevant sections: '? 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.' '? 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;' '? 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ? (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.' The Langham Act relates to Trademark infringement, the sections upon wehich the Plaintiffs rely are ?1114 and ?1125. They are a little long and can be found in full here: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1114.html and here: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html As far as I can tell these are the provisions relied on by the Plaintiffs in respect of their suit against RDR Books and Lexicon Steve. On a bare interpretation, being familiar as I am with both the HP books and the online Lexicon, I am of the view that Warners and JKR should previal. ? 107 (4) of the Copyright Act of 1976 in particular has been relied upon when JKR was bleating about the potential loss to her if the Lexicon is published. That's why fair use will most probably not be allowed in this matter and the case should be ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs. The full filing history is available at: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-1:2007cv09667/case\ _id-315790/ (Carol, note there's no www and should not be) Some relevant case law for anyone particularly interested: http://www.copyrighthistory.com/donaldson.html - An English case, but where this all started ultimately, that is in terms of Copyright. http://supreme.justia.com/us/33/591/case.html - Being a leading and authoritative case from the US Supreme Court. There's also a very interesting essay (in German, but with relevant parts translated) at: http://www.copyrighthistory.com/fichte.html In respect of the Trademarks there's little, if any, defensibility by the Defendants on that aspect. Warner Bros licences the names' use and there's more or less an end to it. It is a pity that there is not any, except an apparently unauthorised, index to the HP books, but that will change once the Encyclopaedia proposed by JKR comes out (and despite her tearful outburst in Court, I believe it will come out). So, there it is, my opinion of course. I apprehend that the Plintiffs will prevail, but I also apprehend that there should not be a significant damages award due to the Lexicon not having actually yet been published. Apologies to anyone who read this and found it dull, however the law often is that way. Goddlefrood, who finds this suit far from grey, but actually quite black and white. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 01:14:54 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:14:54 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480D3C0E.9010702@yahoo.com> [After 45 minutes of poking around Amazon.com and composing my reply, my computer blue-screened and I lost everything. Why oh *why* was I working in Windows? Serves me right, I guess. So here below is the condensed version of my reply.] First, Carol, I note your correction to my misspelling of Justia. However, I'd also like to claim First Post on the mention of the site in this discussion, which I mentioned before the weekend in another post of mine. Carol: > I would think that the fan guides and encyclopedias would be most > relevant, particularly those that are unauthorized. The question is, > how much copyrighted material do they contain ... Yes, I agree it would be interesting to do an entry-by-entry comparison of Steve's work with several of those I mentioned, in particular the unauthorized HP guides. Unfortunately, the bookstore is some 500 km from my house and I'm not likely to return anytime soon. And I didn't see the Justia document until after I returned, so I can only compare it to my memory of the books I looked at. However, Amazon.com has a wonderful "look inside this book" feature that includes pages from several HP guides, including The Complete Idiot's Guide to Harry Potter, and a couple of works that bill themselves explicitly as unauthorized by JK/WB. A few entries are available that can be compared to the Justia document, and they appear to contain neither more nor less explicitly copyrighted material than Steve's (in that Steve's seems to contain very little at all, at least in the way of direct quotations). The formats, however, e.g., of The Complete Idiot's Guide, seem pretty similar to Steve's. There were a couple of specifically interesting examples at Amazon.com; however, I have to trot off to work now and don't have time to look them up again. Anyone interested can just search on Potter guide or similar words. Duriez' explicitly-titled "Unauthorized Guide" is available from the Amazon UK site, but you can't look inside it. If I have time after work, I'll go look through Amazon.com again. There were certainly several books there that had formats very similar to Steve's -- i.e., an alphabetical list of entries, with factual descriptions but only the occasional direct quotation. --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 01:21:02 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:21:02 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480D3D7E.1050807@yahoo.com> Goddlefrood: > Goddlefrood, who finds this suit far from grey, but actually > quite black and white. My questions are: how do you legally distinguish between Steve's lexicon and the many other guides, encyclopedias and what-nots out there (some of them HP-related). If Steve's work falls, then does that mean every other unauthorized lexicon and encyclopedia is also in violation of trademark? And, Fair Use (which *is* what the whole case seems to be about) is all about copyright, not trademark. Yet you assert otherwise. --CJ From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 02:04:30 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:04:30 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: <480D3D7E.1050807@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > CJ: > My questions are: how do you legally distinguish between Steve's > lexicon and the many other guides, encyclopedias and what-nots > out there (some of them HP-related). If Steve's work falls, > then does that mean every other unauthorized lexicon and > encyclopedia is also in violation of trademark? Goddlefrood: OK, apparently the trademark points have been resolved between the parties. A point I wasn't aware of, but now am. Each alleged violation is taken on a case by case basis. It may be that JKR is concerned that the Lexicon is substantially similar to her proposed encyclopaedia, and that certainly appears to be the case from the evidence at the hearing. Any other unauthorised lexicon or encyclopaedia would have to be looked at individually, however in a nutshell it means they would most probably be doomed to lose any suit should the decision go against RDR and Lexicon Steve. Whether the copyright proprietors care to pursue all such matters would be something for them. This could, IOW, be the beginning of a campaign by JKR and Warners to protect their rights, which they have typically sought to enforce previously. Some of the items in one of your previous post may not yet have come to the attention of the relevant people whose rights may be being breached by said items. > CJ: > And, Fair Use (which *is* what the whole case seems to be about) > is all about copyright, not trademark. Yet you assert otherwise. Goddlefrood: Fair use is what the Copyright aspect of the case is about. Reading of the initial complaint by the Plaintiffs suggested that the Trademark was as much of a concern, if not more so, than the Copyright violation. Subsection 4 of section 107 of the Copyright Act is almost certainly the provision upon which the Plaintiffs are most heavily relying in terms of the Copyright. That, to me, is very clear and would exclude the Lexicon from being ruled as a fair use. Other HP related material, such as critical analysis and reviews would not be affected by any ruling to be made. You will appreciate that I am only looking at this in terms of if there is to be a judgment. If a settlement is reached then these issues will be by the by. Should the statutes be followed then I see no reason why the defence should succeed. Incidentally, I am neither a trademark nor am I a copyright lawyer, having little call for it in a country that has approximately a 98% instance of pirating. What I set out is the relevant law as can be ascertained from the complaint and the answer. Were I to be especially interested, which I must admit I'm not, then no doubt I could find material to try to justify the publication of the Lexicon. It's not something that I would personally buy, nor will be the proposed Encyclopaedia. I do, however, apprehend that the Plaintiffs will prevail in any decision that comes out in respect of the suit, and I express no personal preference one way or the other as to who I would *prefer* to win. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 03:37:28 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:37:28 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood: > > > The portions of the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Lanham Act upon > which the Plaintiffs (outmoded per Lord Woolfe, of course) rely > are: Carol responds: thanks for the very helpful definitations of "compilations" and "derivative works" and for the relevant portions of the copyright act (I had already posted the fair use portions, but it doesn't hurt to have them all in one post). Lee has already pointed out that the dispute is about copyright violation vs. fair use; anything related to trademarks is either incidental or already settled, as far as I know. JKR is calling the quoted portions of the Lexicon "plagiarism" (which I've already explained is a moral or ethical violation and is only illegal if it violates copyright law). She also claims that the Lexicon contains quoted material without quotation marks or attribution (probably very close paraphrases); however, I'm not aware of any examples. The entries that she specifically mentioned contain no such flaw that I can see. Her lawyers claim that the site is 91 percent her work, another claim that to me seems unsubstantiated by valid evidence. I haven't read the entire Lexicon, though I refer to it frequently, but what I have read is "derivative"--it depends on JKR's work for its existence, but it is not her own words. And ideas, as you know, can't be copyrighted. Goddlefrood: > It is a pity that there is not any, except an apparently unauthorised, index to the HP books, but that will change once the Encyclopaedia proposed by JKR comes out (and despite her tearful outburst in Court, I believe it will come out). Carol responds: Since indexes are usually compiled by professional indexers, all JKR, or rather Bloomsbury, has to do is authorize someone to do it. An index should not depend on JKR's encyclopedia, which is an entirely different type of work. Actually, we need two indexes, one for the Bloomsbury editions and one for the Scholastic editions (with allowances for any slight differences between the paperbacks and the hardbound books, such as the presence or absence of a few lines in Draco's conversation with Draco in HBP). I can't imagine her compiling an index herself or anyone expecting her to do so. Goddlefrood: > So, there it is, my opinion of course. I apprehend that the Plintiffs will prevail, but I also apprehend that there should not be a significant damages award due to the Lexicon not having actually yet been published. > > Apologies to anyone who read this and found it dull, however the law often is that way. > > Goddlefrood, who finds this suit far from grey, but actually quite black and white. Carol responds: Not dull at all. I think the definitions you quoted were very helpful. However, I disagree that it's black and white (so does the judge), and I disagree that provision 4 ("the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work") makes it likely that the plaintiffs will win. Even if she had already written the encyclopedia and the Lexicon took away some of her profits, it might not be unfair competition. It's not as if she'd written a plot synopsis of her next novel and he'd used it to write his own. But the point is, her encyclopedia, if written, would incorporate materials that Steve V. has no access to and for that reason alone, his can't possibly compete with hers. Moreover, the proposed format of her work, outlined in an interview, is very different from his (which, BTW, is not really an alphabetical rearrangement of her material, as she describes it, but a thematic or categorical rearrangement with subcategories and alphabetically arranged entries within each subcategory. (it's a lot easier to find information on the Lexicon than it is in the books, and that would remain true even if readers had access to an index, which would still require them to look up the references individually and compile it or incorporate it themselves in some useful manner. Anyway, I don't think item 4 is the primary bone of contention. I think it's provision 3, "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." The question at issue, according to JKR, is the Lexicon's use of her material, and the pie chart claims that 91 percent of the Lexicon is her work. But even if that's true, what matters is whether 91 percent of the Lexicon is her *words*, the only copyrightable element of her work. And if those words are rearranged in a summary taken from various chapters of a book or various books, or even if they're properly cited paraphrases that don't pick up her exact phrases without acknowledgment, then he's not guilty of plagiarism (if that even matters when the issue is copyright violation. So the question that needs to be answered is still how much quoted material is allowable in an unauthorized compendium or compilation. I'm a bit confused by the word "substantiality," which is redundant if it merely refers to the amount of quoted material. If it relates to the amount of the *original* work that's copied, an occasional full page of quotations from seven books (arranged by book)--let's say one hundred such pages, but I'm guessing--is not a substantial portion of a series involving some 3,700 pages (agian, I don't remember the exact figure) is not substantial. In fact, it's about three percent, if my math is correct (and I'm not taking any bets on that). Anyway, I hope for the sake of all those other unauthorized "compilations" (encyclopedias and and fan guides what not) about the HP series or any other copyrighted works, or rather, the sake of their author, editors, and compilers, that the case goes against JKR. Carol, who is not a lawyer but does know quite a bit about plagiarism (which is not the same as copyright infringement, JKR to the contrary) and a bit about the publishing industry as well From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 04:35:16 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:35:16 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > In fact, the "Chinese Fireball" entry is merely a list of canon > "facts" (appearance, habitat, etc.) in the same format used for all > the other dragons. There's not the faintest hint of plagiarism, and > the fact that she invented it (It no longer exists solely in her > imagination) is irrelevant. Actually, I don't think it is. I've read so much about this whole thing that I can no longer remember anything to cite, but copyright law does, IIRC, protect these kinds of 'fictional facts', where the only source is from the copyrighted material. That's the issue where the Seinfeld trivia book got whacked. I don't know whether the trivia book quoted the facts in the exact wording which they appeared as dialogue in the show--I'm guessing not--but they did lose that case. Another point that's come up, the massive amounts of work involved in the Lexicon, are also, I think, irrelevant to copyright--Feist disallowed the 'sweat of the brow' defense. I'm most bothered by this cavalier attitude to something that was very much a collective enterprise, where other fans sent in corrections of all kinds and contributed to the online website as it stood (since at least some people have requested their materials be pulled). You will note that a number of the Tolkien items listed, and some of the Harry Potter ones, are no longer in print--that's often because they were found to be infringing, and letting them go out of print was an agreed upon solution. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 08:46:10 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:46:10 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480DA5D2.9080409@yahoo.com> Goddlefrood: > It may be that JKR is concerned that the Lexicon is > substantially similar to her proposed encyclopaedia, > and that certainly appears to be the case from the > evidence at the hearing. OK, I admit I haven't read the text of the actual legal complaint (legal documents bore me to distraction). But what you seem to be suggesting is the core of JKR/WB's complaint is that Steve's lexicon violates the copyright of a manuscript that a) is unpublished (and presumably unavailable to Steve); and b) is more recent than the website. As the text of the lexicon is (apparently) substantially copied from the website, it predates JKR's encyclopedia (prossibly even any rough drafts she may have made). Arguing that a pre-existing text could violate the copyright of a text that didn't even exist at the time the lexicon was written seems strange indeed. Any coincidence, in that case, between the newer text (JKR's encyclopedia) and the older text (the lexicon) would strongly suggest it is JKR who is in violation of copyright, unless you believe in time machines. But I thought (again, from what I've heard; not from reading the actual legal documents, which I will only do under mortal threat) that JKR was arguing the lexicon violated the copyright of the HP canon. But given that most of my knowledge comes from newspapers, chances are I'm wrong (again!). Further, what does WB have to do with Jo's unpublished encyclopedia? WB owns movie rights and trademarks; they are not a book publisher. I hope the above isn't coming across as confrontational (I do have that unfortunate tendency :-( ). I'm pretty sure I know less than you do about the whole thing. These are just questions that don't make sense to me, if I'm understanding your assertions correctly. > Whether the copyright proprietors care to pursue all such matters > [against other reference works] would be something for them. Perhaps; however, some of the encyclopediae and references are of works that are known for aggressive protection of intellectual property. I'm thinking particularly of the Tolkien and Lewis estates. Numerous reference works have been available for both LotR and Narnia for years or decades. And the online Encyclopedia of Arda even sells an interactive DVD version of itself. Whether all those works have been authorized, or the respectives estates haven't been especially bothered by such things (which would be uncharacteristic of them), or they don't see a case to be made, I have no idea. It just seems to me -- for no good reason, probably -- the first and second prospects seem less likely than the third. > Subsection 4 of section 107 of the Copyright Act is almost > certainly the provision upon which the Plaintiffs are most > heavily relying in terms of the Copyright. That, to me, is > very clear and would exclude the Lexicon from being ruled > as a fair use. On the assumption you're referring to this (dagnabit; now you've gone and made me read a real live legal document; yecchh!) "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." I thought the "copyrighted work" referred to published works, specifically the works for which a copyright violation claim is being made. In this case, I thought JKR/WB were asserting copyright violation of the HP canon, not JKR's unfinished/unpublished encyclopedia. If they are asserting the latter, I can only say WOW! If all an author has to do to assert copyright violation is say, "Hey -- *I* was going to write one of those!" I'd think we're in a mess o' trouble. Further, other reading I've done suggests (rightly or not I have no idea), that no one prong of the fair use test is supposed to be allowed to prevail; rather they are to be taken all together in their totality. I.e., if none of the first three applies, the fourth cannot stand on its own. > I do, however, apprehend that the Plaintiffs will prevail > in any decision that comes out in respect of the suit, and > I express no personal preference one way or the other as to > who I would *prefer* to win. The judge is making noises as if there will be no clear winner in this. But that could be just for public consumption (or at least to turn up the pressure to settle). Who knows? I also have no personal investment in either side in this case, specifically. However, the more reading I've done, the less clear it is to me how RDR/SVA are in violation of copyright. I just haven't been able to discern anything special about Steve's work to distinguish it from all the other lexicons, encyclopedias or reference works I've seen. Either they all stand or fall, but they do it together. And I think that would send major shockwaves through both the publishing and scholarly communities. Though I cheerfully admit my ignorance on legal issues, and will happily accept correction. Carol: > I'm a bit confused by the word "substantiality," > which is redundant if it merely refers to the amount > of quoted material. CJ just speculating: Perhaps it's intended more in its original etymological meaning as "of importance", rather than "of significant quantity". Passages of central importance would carry greater weight towards the third test than asides or insignificant minutiae. (I hope I'm wildly wrong about this; the much more distasteful alternative is that I'm actually starting to think like a lawyer). nrenka: > You will note that a number of the Tolkien items listed, and some of > the Harry Potter ones, are no longer in print--that' s often because > they were found to be infringing, and letting them go out of print was > an agreed upon solution. I speculated as much about at least one of the works I listed. You may indeed be correct. I'm just wondering, however, a) if we know that to be the case for certain for any of the out-of-print guides, and b) if it is indeed true for some why it isn't true for all. --CJ From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 09:57:54 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:57:54 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: <480DA5D2.9080409@yahoo.com> Message-ID: > CJ: > OK, I admit I haven't read the text of the actual legal > complaint (legal documents bore me to distraction). Goddlefrood: I have read many of them, but in respect of your parenthtical observation I have to respond: "You too?" > CJ: > But what you seem to be suggesting is the core of JKR/WB's > complaint is that Steve's lexicon violates the copyright of > a manuscript that a) is unpublished (and presumably > unavailable to Steve); and b) is more recent than the > website. Goddlefrood: That's one part of it certainly and something that was expressly stated in the evidence. When JKR went on (and oh, did she go on), about the unpublished work, it was her contention that the proposed encyclopaedia and the lexicon would be of similar content. That she also contends that the lexicon breaches the already published works is also the case. In order to establish a breach, and damage as a consequence of that breach, she has to show that she would be affected. That's what the evidential hearing was about. > CJ: > Further, what does WB have to do with Jo's unpublished > encyclopedia? WB owns movie rights and trademarks; they > are not a book publisher. Goddlefrood: Correct, and it seems they have resolved whatever issue they had regarding the trademarks. That they were an original plaintiff relative to their trademarks is clear from the complaint (which I'll grant you is inordinately dull) > CJ: > I hope the above isn't coming across as confrontational (I do > have that unfortunate tendency :-( ). Goddlefrood: It's the nature of the game, a confrontational system is what is in place in the USA's legal field and in my own jurisdiction, so a little healthy back and forth, which this is no more than, would seem as water off a duck's back. > CJ: > I'm thinking particularly of the Tolkien and Lewis estates. Whether all those works have been authorized, > or the respectives estates haven't been especially bothered > by such things (which would be uncharacteristic of them), or > they don't see a case to be made, I have no idea. Goddlefrood: There may be a combination of the factors you suggest, coupled with publication taking place in non-Berne Convention signatory countries. That, I admit, is a grey area. There are around 50 countries that have not adopted the Berne Convention and have little or no Copyright protection in place. Here in Fiji, for instance,the Copyright Act is a relative new comer, having only been enacted in 1999. Many countries have yet to enact any copyright legislation. The full text of the Berne Convention, which is available online, includes at the end a list of signatories. There are notable absences from that list. The Berne Convention is the international copyright protection convention, in case anyone wondered. Or, it may be that the various copyright proprietors haven't bothered because they have not been adversely affected by the works given as exemplars. > CJ: > I thought the "copyrighted work" referred to published works, > specifically the works for which a copyright violation claim > is being made. Goddlefrood: Hey, I know you don't want to read the Copyright Act of 1976, but the relevant sections that I appended to my earlier post would disabuse you of this idea. The full text of the act is available on the net and the only relevant provisions, as per JKR's portion of the complaint, is the first tranche, consisting of a mere 20 or so sections, albeit many of them quite lengthy. Not reading for the faint hearted, and almost certainly not your bag. > CJ: > The judge is making noises as if there will be no clear winner > in this. But that could be just for public consumption (or at > least to turn up the pressure to settle). Who knows? Goddlefrood: In my experience many judges would prefer not to make a decision, and often encourage settlement. If this Judge does deliver a decision after no settlement is reached you can bet that one or the other parties would prevail. In that event my money would be on JKR. > CJ: > ... the more reading I've done, the less clear it is to me > how RDR/SVA are in violation of copyright. Goddlefrood: Time to read the complaint (the amended one, not the original), the answer and the relevant legislation. Boring it might be, but the only way to see what's going on and what the allegations of both sides are is to dive on in. Altogether that's only around 60 pages of A4 sized text, which will probably be less than the judgment, if or when that comes out. Like I said earlier, each alleged infringing work would have to be taken on its own merits. There may be more suits to come I suspect. From specialcritters at hotmail.com Tue Apr 22 11:44:48 2008 From: specialcritters at hotmail.com (Lee Truslow) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:44:48 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: <480D3C0E.9010702@yahoo.com> References: <480D3C0E.9010702@yahoo.com> Message-ID: (Something's not letting me snip, but I just wanted say that another potential source of HP compendiums, encyclopedias, quiz books, etc. may be the local library. Our library has, like, 10 of them, not all of which I've been able to get yet. Interlibrary loan can probably get the rest, for anybody that wants to do some serious comparing. Having seen so many of the other works, I, too, wondered what was SO different about the Lexicon that it's being made an example of?) _________________________________________________________________ In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 13:49:28 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:49:28 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480DECE8.6020202@yahoo.com> CJ: > the core of JKR/WB's complaint is that Steve's lexicon > violates the copyright of a manuscript that > a) is unpublished (and presumably unavailable > to Steve); and b) is more recent than the > website. > > I thought the "copyrighted work" referred to published works, > specifically the works for which a copyright violation claim > is being made. Goddlefrood: > the Copyright Act of 1976 ... would disabuse you of this > idea. I knew I hadn't expressed myself clearly in my original point, but I didn't have time to clean it up. Of course, I didn't mean to suggest that unpublished works aren't protected by copyright. I was really trying to make two separate points above. The bit before the snip was wondering how Steve could be guilty of copyright violation if he a) had never seen JKR's manuscript, and b) his text predates hers. Now a) may well be confusing copyright with plagiarism. If my roomful of monkeys happens coincidentally to bang out a text identical (or nearly so) to yours without ever having seen yours, am I violating your copyright? Now suppose my monkeys bang out the text before you do? How could I possibly be accused of violating your copyright if my text existed first? In the bit after the snip I was referring to the third test of the Fair Use clause, not to copyrighted texts in general. Specifically, it's my understanding that the test asks whether the violating text impacts the market for the existing works of which it is in violation, not for potential future works the author may or may not ever publish. I think that latter would be a very dangerous precedent to set. > it was her contention that the proposed encyclopaedia and the > lexicon would be of similar content. "Would be" because, of course, her encyclopedia is unfinished, let alone unpublished. I just don't see how an existing lexicon could be held in violation of the copyright of a text that doesn't even exist yet. > That she also contends that the lexicon breaches the > already published works is also the case. That would be the more rational argument to make. But that gets us right back to what a breach of copyright means. Copyright protects expression, not ideas, so as long as Steve's lexicon simply restates the ideas in HP in his own words, he is not in violation. It's only when he begins quoting verbatim or near-verbatim from the HP canon he is in potential breach of copyright. But from what portions of the lexicon I've read, I've seen very little direct quotation of JKR's works (as I mentioned in a previous post, a total of no more than thirty words in the first ten pages of the document at Justia). > In order to establish a breach, > and damage as a consequence of that breach, she has to > show that she would be affected. That's what the > evidential hearing was about. Again, my reading of the application of the Fair Use tests is that they are intended to be taken together; no one of the four tests is intended to stand in isolation. That is, there must be clear evidence of violation on multiple tests (just how many and how much, apparently, is what is left to be decided per case). If JKR/WB succeed in proving violation only on a single point, therefore, my understanding is that precedent would find in favor of RDR/SVA. Goddlefrood: > If this Judge does deliver a decision ... one > or the other parties would prevail. You see no chance for a compromise ruling -- one that gives both sides something but not everything they wanted? Perhaps, say, a finding that the lexicon is in violation at certain points (say, the Sorting Hat entry), but that a reworking of those sections would free it for publication? CJ: > ... the more reading I've done, the less clear it is to me > how RDR/SVA are in violation of copyright. Goddlefrood: > Time to read the complaint (the amended one, not the original), > the answer and the relevant legislation. OK, I'll try to find time to do so. But doing so will only tell me the respective sides' opinions of what the law says -- a bit like asking two schoolyard bullies who started the fight. Which means I expect to be enlightened only on what JKR/WB claim the law says. But again, I'll try to read as much of it as I can. CJ From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 15:51:29 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:51:29 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: <480DECE8.6020202@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > That would be the more rational argument to make. But that gets us > right back to what a breach of copyright means. Copyright protects > expression, not ideas, so as long as Steve's lexicon simply restates > the ideas in HP in his own words, he is not in violation. Problem is, when it comes to fiction, it's actually not so clear that it's only expression and not ideas, by current case law. Check out the case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_Entertainment,_Inc._v._Carol_Publishing_Group To quote the relevant bit from the analysis of the case here: "When analyzing the quality of the copied material, the court rejected the defendant's position that Seinfeld trivia constituted facts and was therefore not covered by copyright protection. It reasoned that the "facts" portrayed in Seinfeld originated in the fictitious expression by the writers of the show. The court noted that the book did not quiz readers on such facts as the location of the Seinfeld set or the biographies of the actors, but on characters and events springing from the imagination of the show's authors." When you combine that problem with the fact that the Lexicon takes such a massive amount of information from the copyrighted works (which is a point the defense did not challenge, IIRC), well... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 18:47:52 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:47:52 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Goddlefrood: > > Time to read the complaint (the amended one, not the original), > the answer and the relevant legislation. Boring it might be, > but the only way to see what's going on and what the allegations > of both sides are is to dive on in. Altogether that's only around > 60 pages of A4 sized text, which will probably be less than the > judgment, if or when that comes out. > > Like I said earlier, each alleged infringing work would have to > be taken on its own merits. There may be more suits to come I > suspect. > Alla: Yeah, it is not that bad ;) Leaky now has complete transcripts of the trial on. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/22/jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-trial- complete-transcripts From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 19:01:24 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:01:24 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > > Yeah, it is not that bad ;) > > Leaky now has complete transcripts of the trial on. > > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/22/jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-trial- > complete-transcripts > Alla: I just want to say ( and I only skimmed half of last day trial transcript, which is 100 pages) that I wish that in one of my cases I could appear in front of Judge Patterson. And really, I have no clue which way he will rule, even though I know how I want him to rule, but he seems to be very very intelligent and sharp thinking. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 19:03:30 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:03:30 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective Message-ID: Two things that either bother me, or I am curious about with regards to the now closed Copyright/Fair_Use case between RDR and JKR/WB. First, I wonder to what extent the judge is require to and is willing to seek out the truth. Would the judge likely do outside research on this case? For example, would the judge feel compelled to go to the Lexicon website and see for himself. Would he feel compelled to search and see if other Harry Potter book published lexicons existed; apparently, there are several? Or, would the judge feel that it was up to the involved parties to present this evidence in court? Is it up to the parties to prove their case, or is it up to the judge to independently seek out relevant information and by extension, the truth? While I would like to think the judge would seek the truth, I'm more inclined to think he will ignore the truth of the matter and simply look at the evidence that was presented to him in court. Even if he were to know of specific evidence that contradicted his likely verdict, I think he would be compelled to ignore that information if it wasn't presented in court. Next, with regard to Steve, I recently listen to a PotterCast in which the members of the Leaky Cauldron more or less abandoned Steve Vander Ark, saying that he can't expect sympathy for fandom when he has done what he has done. Personally, I think that is misguided, and even slightly mean spirited; though, at the same time, I understand it. As I've already said, many people are siding with JKR simply because she is JKR, and are doing so independent of the facts or of fair interpretation of the law. It is my personal outsider's opinion, that if this was up to SteveV personally, it would all be over with. SteveV said he had never published the Lexicon because he believed it was likely a copyright violation despite frequent requests by fans for a book version of it. Along comes a publisher that give SteveV their absolute and determined assurance that his lexicon fall well within 'Fair Use'. Once they convinced him of this, and once a contract was signed, the whole matter was out of SteveV's hands. Now he is bound by contract to defend his publisher. He has consigned, in a manner of speaking, the Lexicon over to them. If they choose to fight JKR request to cease and desist, then SteveV has no choice but to accept the publisher's decision. And to do his part NOT to breech the contract he signed. I personally have no doubt in my mind that if this was a personal matter within SteveV's control, and if JKR has sent him personally a 'Cease and Desist' letter, he would have ceased immediately rather than damage his reputation with the fan community and with JKR. People keep implying SteveV is doing this or doing that, but I think he is simply trapped into honoring his contract because he can see no way out of it now that it is signed. I've said before that SteveV is not pushing his opinion or wishes into the arena, he is simply caught up in a tide that has swept him away. Though, without a doubt, he has driven great portions of the fan community away from himself, and has been, in essence, made an outcast; no longer befriended by those he once counted as friends, I do feel sorry for him. I think he made a mistake in judgment on the advice of very self-serving people (the publisher), a mistake that has essentially robbed him of himself and his place in the Potterverse. But, I don't doubt for a second that it was just that, an ill-advised mistake that he would gladly retract if it was only in his power to do so. Though I can't find it at the moment, there was a recent audio interview with SteveV where he essentially says as much. He's not in it for the money, but to serve a fan need that has continually made its presence known to him. He would never have taken a stand against JKR if it was in his power to stop it. It doesn't bother me that people are taking JKR's side. Through her books, she and her characters have become like best friends to us. I just wish people would be a little more understanding that SteveV has merely gotten himself into a situation he can no longer control, and understand, as I speculate, that if he could control it, he would stop it. It is not the support of JKR that I object to, it is the need by some to vilify and demonize SteveV in the process. Of course, that is just my speculative opinion. steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 19:17:11 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:11 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Two things that either bother me, or I am curious about with > regards to the now closed Copyright/Fair_Use case between RDR > and JKR/WB. > > First, I wonder to what extent the judge is require to and is > willing to seek out the truth. Would the judge likely do outside > research on this case? For example, would the judge feel > compelled to go to the Lexicon website and see for himself. Would > he feel compelled to search and see if other Harry Potter book > published lexicons existed; apparently, there are several? > > Or, would the judge feel that it was up to the involved parties > to present this evidence in court? Is it up to the parties to > prove their case, or is it up to the judge to independently > seek out relevant information and by extension, the truth? > > While I would like to think the judge would seek the truth, I'm > more inclined to think he will ignore the truth of the matter > and simply look at the evidence that was presented to him in > court. Even if he were to know of specific evidence that > contradicted his likely verdict, I think he would be compelled > to ignore that information if it wasn't presented in court. > > Alla: Judge in the bench trial is acting as fact finder as well, therefore theoretically he can go and seek out any additional research he deems necessary for him to decide. If he feels that he can render a verdict looking at the evidence presented to him in court, he will do that. How to put it, Lexicon site and its difference from the book or similarities IS relevant to the issues, directly relevant in my non copyright lawyer opinion, so I would think that judge may take a look at it, but he does not have to, and if he decides not to, that does not mean that he is not looking for the truth IMO. That means that judge thinks that he can render decision based on what he learned and boy from what I read already that man seemed quite eager to learn in my view. From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 23 00:03:52 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:03:52 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003001c8a4d5$847134a0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Steve, Only one thing I can say to your post: HERE HERE! I agree with you, especially about the mean-spiritedness of Leaky's position regarding Steve V. One of the things I saw come up frequently was that since he's a librarian he should know about copyright law and so should have not gone ahead with the printed Lexicon. Well, just because someone's a librarian doesn't mean, IMO, that they would or should have to know all the ins and outs of copyright law. No doubt, he knows a bit as he personally didn't want to publish until RDR talked him into it. Even to the most informed individual, this might happen if the assurance of "no problem" seems to be coming from someone who has been there, done that, and *should* know all the ins and outs. So I blame RDR for entrapping a decent person. To those who have ostracized Steve v., I've gotta ask if they're gonna act like the Gryffindor, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw students who dissed Harry until it was proven that he wasn't the heir of Slytherin, or he wasn't crazy, or he was telling the truth about Voldemort, etc., etc.? I hope not! Right now, again IMO, Steve V. needs more Hermione or Gini types than the above-mentioned. Just my knut's worth. Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 00:46:22 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:46:22 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > Though I can't find it at the moment, there was a recent > audio interview with SteveV where he essentially says as > much. He's not in it for the money, but to serve a fan need > that has continually made its presence known to him. He would > never have taken a stand against JKR if it was in his power > to stop it. zgirnius: Here: http://web.splashcast.net/web_watch/?code=RQWK6893IC From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 01:08:20 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:08:20 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480E8C04.8090508@yahoo.com> Me: > Copyright protects expression, not ideas, so as long as > Steve's lexicon simply restates the ideas in HP in his > own words, he is not in violation. nrenka: > Problem is, when it comes to fiction, it's actually not so > clear that it's only expression and not ideas, by > current case law. Check out the case here: > To quote the relevant bit from the analysis of the case here: Yes, the Seinfeld case. But I don't think you cited all the relevant bits. While the judge did determine that fictional facts can be copyrighted, his finding against Castle Rock wasn't based solely (or even primarily) on that, nor does it appear to me (if the Wikipedia description is clear) as if he would have ruled against the defendants if that *had* been the sole factor. For example: "The court further held that the more critical inquiry was whether The SAT merely supplanted the Seinfeld episodes or rather if it added something new, providing new insights, new aesthetics in the manner that the fair use doctrine was meant to enrich society." And "The court ... concluded that the purpose of the book was to entertain the Seinfeld audience with a book about Seinfeld, much the same purpose as the television show." And "The court emphasized that derivative works were based upon preexisting works. They transformed an original work into a new mode of expression, but unlike a work of fair use expression, a derivative work's purpose was not transformed. In addition, when a derivative work transformed an original work into a new mode of expression such that little similarity remained, it would not infringe the copyright of the original work." In the Seinfeld case the court applied all four fair use tests, and found the trivia book in violation of several of them: The second test: The court held that the nature of Seinfeld was fictional, and the second factor tends to favor works based on fact. Works of fiction generally enjoy greater copyright protection because of their higher content of protectible material. However, the court noted that transformative use can lessen the importance of the nature of the copyrighted work, but since The SAT held slight or non-existent transformative purpose, the fictional nature of Seinfeld disfavored a finding a fair use." Note that it the lack of sufficiently transformative purpose of the trivia book was a key factor in this determination. If the book *had* been sufficiently transformative, it appears as if the court might have ruled differently, *despite* the copyrighted nature of the original work. The third test: "Here again, the transformative use affected the court's analysis. Use of a substantial part or the 'heart' of a protected work is justified when the character of the work is criticism or parody, because these expressions necessarily demand a greater quantity to be useful. The court reasoned that a greater degree of material from Seinfeld would be necessary for an accurate critique of the show's 'nothingness', but because the court found little transformative use for the purposes of critique, this weighed against defendants." The fourth test is the most interesting to me, and I'm not sure how to read the JKR/SVA case in light of the reasoning: "The court noted that the fourth factor was not to be given the greatest weight, but to be taken equally with the other three in a determination of fair use. The analysis for market effect does not look to whether the secondary work detracts from market of the copyrighted work, but rather does it substitute the market of the original (the nature of copyright as a monopoly on publication does not permit a substitution). The court held that the differences in form between The SAT and Seinfeld and the lack of transformative purpose made the book a derivative work in a derivative market. Because the SAT was the only Seinfeld trivia book in existence, it completely substituted this derivative market for the show. The court further reasoned that even though the authors did not intend to enter the trivia book market, the existence of The SAT effectively usurped Castle Rock's right to do so. If the derivative market was one that the copyright holder would generally develop or license, a secondary author would be barred from entering it. On the other hand, if the market was one generally protected by fair use, such as criticism, parody, or academic scholarship, the copyright holder could not enter those markets and attempt to preclude secondary authors from entering." In my reading of the Wikipedia discussion, the primary factor in the court's decision involved the transformative nature (or in this case the lack thereof) of the trivia book; the copyrightable nature of fictional facts was neither a premise nor a conclusion of the court's reasoning, but simply an argument it considered along the way. I think the lexicon case is of a substantially different nature, incomparable to the Seinfeld case. In light of the above, I think the lexicon would easily pass the transformative test; its purpose is clearly different from the HP series. And having cleared that fundamental hurdle, its unclear to me that the remainder of the reasoning in the Seinfeld case would apply. The court's reasoning on the fourth test was more interesting: "The court further reasoned that ... the existence of The SAT effectively usurped Castle Rock's right to do so. If the derivative market was one that the copyright holder would generally develop or license, a secondary author would be barred from entering it." What does THAT mean? Could it be argued that the lexicon/encyclopedia market is one JKR would "generally develop or license"? --CJ From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 23 01:57:40 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:57:40 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003b01c8a4e5$6a01d470$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | zgirnius: | Here: | http://web.splashcast.net/web_watch/?code=RQWK6893IC That's not working for me...or it's got some stuff that screenreaders don't like. Either way, I can't find the interview. Tnx, Lee From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 02:24:12 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:24:12 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: <003001c8a4d5$847134a0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > Steve, > > Only one thing I can say to your post: HERE HERE! I agree with you, > especially about the mean-spiritedness of Leaky's position regarding Steve > V. Alla: I did not listen to Potter cast, so I cannot say whether I agree or not about Leaky being mean to Steve, but I just wanted to remark that while I absolutely agree that Leaky is on JKR's side, I still wanted to applaud them for IMO excellent, absolutely excellent coverage of the trial. I know it was not your point at all, but I guess consider it my aside. They made sure to link to all filings on Justia as they become available, they made sure to do detailed summaries of trial days and then just link link link to all periodicals they could find in the press and just let readers form their own opinion and now they posted those transcripts, etc. Now do I think it was necessary to speak up about severing the connections with Steve during the trial? Probably not, but I would not find it surprising if they just had one interview of Steve too many to read that upset them. But I think that something else probably went behind the scenes and they just had enough. What I am trying to say is that I do not think they ever tried to hide the fact that they are on JKR's side, even if they tried to not say much against or for any party and I think that as long as they also give enough factual material to let readers form their own opinion, it is perfectly fine. After all, I do not watch Fox 5 news like ever, I think their bias just showing through every piece of news they report and I am sure some republicans do not watch other channels whom they think are biased in favor of democrats and nobody says that they should stop reporting news ( Again I know you did not say anything about it). I think they did very comprehensive coverage. > > One of the things I saw come up frequently was that since he's a librarian > he should know about copyright law and so should have not gone ahead with > the printed Lexicon. Well, just because someone's a librarian doesn't mean, > IMO, that they would or should have to know all the ins and outs of > copyright law. No doubt, he knows a bit as he personally didn't want to > publish until RDR talked him into it. > > Even to the most informed individual, this might happen if the assurance of > "no problem" seems to be coming from someone who has been there, done that, > and *should* know all the ins and outs. So I blame RDR for entrapping a > decent person. > > To those who have ostracized Steve v., I've gotta ask if they're gonna act > like the Gryffindor, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw students who dissed Harry > until it was proven that he wasn't the heir of Slytherin, or he wasn't > crazy, or he was telling the truth about Voldemort, etc., etc.? I hope not! > Right now, again IMO, Steve V. needs more Hermione or Gini types than the > above-mentioned. > Alla: Well, you see I have some disagreements with what you wrote here :-) I saw no indications anywhere that RDR trapped Steve. Didn't he approach them? See, no matter which way the case goes, Steve in my mind behaved wrong, unethically that is, so reversal for me is just impossible. Oh, and of course I do not know Steve. I have heard him once in my live on conference in Canada in 2004 and I remember his presentation being very enjoyable. Hmmm, was it in Canada or next year on Witching hour? I do not want to misstate, but I am pretty sure it was Canada. So, eh, no I do not castigate him. I do not know him. But I extremely dislike his behavior in this situation, I dislike it very very much. And what's most important neither his behavior now, no his testimony at trial changes my mind about it. If he believes that he is in the wrong, should he not made attempts to do something about it? I am not saying that he should know all copyright law, I am saying that his gut instinct should have told him that book that contains that much facts may erm not be suitable for publication. That is if he indeed thinks that he is wrong, if he is right, well, then this is really a disagreement, yes? And if he claims to be such a fan, should he not produce the manuscript for JKR to look at? See, I think he is better of not claiming to be a fan, because otherwise he looks to me sort of like jerk. And as it was pointed out and I kept forgetting to mention it that Lexicon is indeed collective labor in many aspects, while Steve doing lots of work, A LOT of people were doing their bits, no? Any indications that they were named as authors in the contract? Because I did not see any in that book. SO all of this to me even if deemed to be perfectly legal, is just plain wrong and nothing can change it no matter how judge rules, you know? Now if Steve would have said loud and clear in the press - I am SORRY, well, really that is all I would need to hear, you know? Sorry for rambling for so long Alla From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 23 03:10:29 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:29 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: References: <003001c8a4d5$847134a0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: <003c01c8a4ef$95e59810$67a4a8c0@FRODO> (Alla): | Well, you see I have some disagreements with what you wrote here :-) | | I saw no indications anywhere that RDR trapped Steve. Didn't he | approach them? [Lee]: Nope, they approached him and he wasn't sure if the Lexicon would infringe, they said it was Fair Use and so it goes. (Alla): | See, no matter which way the case goes, Steve in my mind behaved | wrong, unethically that is, so reversal for me is just impossible. [Lee]: You're entitled to your opinion, even if I don't agree. [Alla]: | If he believes that he is in the wrong, should he not made attempts | to do something about it? [Lee]: Well, perhaps he might, but he's also bound into a contract and may not be able to do anything. [Alla]: | I am not saying that he should know all copyright law, I am saying | that his gut instinct should have told him that book that contains | that much facts may erm not be suitable for publication. [Lee]: Like I said, it did. Well, we can agree to disagree. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 03:37:42 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:37:42 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: <003c01c8a4ef$95e59810$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: > (Alla): > | Well, you see I have some disagreements with what you wrote here :-) > | > | I saw no indications anywhere that RDR trapped Steve. Didn't he > | approach them? > > [Lee]: > Nope, they approached him and he wasn't sure if the Lexicon would infringe, > they said it was Fair Use and so it goes. Alla: I meant that Steve was looking for publisher with the ready manuscript. Are you saying he was not planning on publishing a book at all and RDR approached him and convinced him to do so? This is so contrary to everything that I read that I would like to ask you to link to this information please? > [Alla]: > | I am not saying that he should know all copyright law, I am saying > | that his gut instinct should have told him that book that contains > | that much facts may erm not be suitable for publication. > > [Lee]: > Like I said, it did. > > Well, we can agree to disagree. > > Cheers, > > Lee :-) > Alla: Actually, you are right, his instinct may have told him that and there was that e-mail from fan asking whether they could publish encyclopedia mentioned several times and I do not know if it was introduced at trial, but it was mentioned. Have I also read it on Leaky? I may have been. And Steve's answer was to the effect that it was illegal, wasn't it? And he decides to go and look for publisher of his own anyways. But yes we do disagree. And let me say it again, because I am really not sure as response to what all claims of demonising Steve come. I mean I saw quite a few of those on Leaky ( demonising Steve) together with nice, educated, interesting discussion, just as I saw mail demonising JKR there. But here, I am not sure who demonised Steve at all. As I said I strongly dislike his action, I have no clue what kind of person he is and can make no judgments and by the way same holds for JKR of course. I LIKE how she comes out in her public appearances, I like what she says, well for the most part, I like how much she gives to charities (yes, yes, I know she is rich, very very rich, still I think she gives a lot and I like it) and I actually especially admire how much she tries to hide her kids from spotlight, but this is all public life of the celebrity, so she can be a terrible person in her private life for all I know and for all I care. I just formed an opinion that she is in the right here and Steve is in the wrong, that is all there is to it, And I also refuse to think that Steve is so stupid that he did not know what he was doing. Now again if you (generic you) think that he is doing right thing, well, I cannot argue with it, but if he thinks he did wrong, his interviews, his behavior at trial just did not tell me that. Different people differ of course. From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 23 05:05:30 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:05:30 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: References: <003c01c8a4ef$95e59810$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: <003d01c8a4ff$a778d9b0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | Alla: | | I meant that Steve was looking for publisher with the ready | manuscript. Are you saying he was not planning on publishing a book | at all and RDR approached him and convinced him to do so? This is so | contrary to everything that I read that I would like to ask you to | link to this information please? [Lee]: http://portal.hickorytech.net/news/read.php?id=16080768&ps=1016&cat=&cps=&la ng=en It says: "Vander Ark runs the popular Harry Potter Lexicon Web site, and RDR wants to publish a print version of the site and charge $24.95." Further down the page, the text reads: "Vander Ark said he initially declined proposals to convert the Web site into an encyclopedia, in part because he believed until last August that in book form, it would represent a copyright violation. After Rowling released the final chapter in the "Harry Potter" series last July, Vander Ark was contacted by an RDR Books employee, who told him that publication of the lexicon would not violate copyright law, he said. Still, to protect himself, Vander Ark said he insisted that RDR Books include a clause in his contract that the publisher would defend him and pay any damages that might result from claims against him." The same text can be found on foxnews.com and other sites...I found *many* duplications. >From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080415/ap_en_ot/harry_potter_lawsuit: "The British author is suing publisher RDR Books for copyright infringement over its plans to publish a "Harry Potter Lexicon" based on a Web site created by Steven Vander Ark, a 50-year-old from Michigan who counts himself among Rowling's most devoted readers." Also, same page: "Vander Ark testified on the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that has pitted his publisher, RDR Books, against Rowling and Warner Bros ., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of intellectual property rights to the Potter books and movies." This says to me that Steve is in the middle, here. And, further, from the same source: "Vander Ark said the Web site was no money maker - taking in less than $7,000 in advertising revenue over its lifetime - and he intended it to be a hobby until he was approached last summer by RDR Books Publisher Roger Rapoport about putting out a printed version. Vander Ark said he initially was against the idea, partly because he believed it would violate copyright law. Even after Rapoport assured him they could publish legally, he remained unsure and insisted on a contract clause in which RDR agreed to take on costs caused by any copyright lawsuit." [Alla]: | Actually, you are right, his instinct may have told him that and | there was that e-mail from fan asking whether they could publish | encyclopedia mentioned several times and I do not know if it was | introduced at trial, but it was mentioned. Have I also read it on | Leaky? I may have been. | | And Steve's answer was to the effect that it was illegal, wasn't it? | | And he decides to go and look for publisher of his own anyways. [Lee]: As the links and quotes show, *RDR* approached *Steve V.* and not the other way round. And, as an aside, I've looked at almost 200 articles which all seem to have the same text within them. Hmm--who was *really* the originator? Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 07:43:38 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:43:38 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: <003b01c8a4e5$6a01d470$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- , "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > | zgirnius: > | Here: > | http://web.splashcast.net/web_watch/?code=RQWK6893IC > > That's not working for me...or it's got some stuff that > screenreaders don't like. Either way, I can't find the > interview. > > Tnx, > Lee > bboyminn: That's odd, I just open the page and in a few seconds the audio just started. It plays in Adobe Flash Player 9. Though I have a 5 megabit D.S.L. connnection. Also, note that Steve V. says that he is one of FOUR authors of the Lexicon, though I think he means the web Lexicon. Steve/bboyminn From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 07:51:44 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:51:44 +0800 Subject: HP Lexicon vs. Encyclopedia of Arda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480EEA90.6080703@yahoo.com> Alla: > Actually, you are right, his instinct may have told him that and > there was that e-mail from fan asking whether they could publish > encyclopedia ... > And Steve's answer was to the effect that it was illegal, > wasn't it? I'm not going to get into this discussion because I don't know Steve, I didn't here the interview, I haven't seen the LC discussions, and I don't know the history between RDR and Steve. Rather, I'm mindful of another site in nearly the same position as Steve's -- the Encyclopedia of Arda, an encyclopedia of all things Tolkien. It's very similar to Steve's site in that it's an encyclopedia of entries with summaries, descriptions and citations from Tolkien's published works. It's been around for years, and its disclaimer specifically states it is not authorized by or affiliated with the Tolkien estate. While the EA has never attempted to publish a hard copy, it does sell a CD of itself which includes all site content in an offline interactive format. That is, it is actually *selling* Tolkien content. And yet I'm not aware that it has ever been bothered by the Tolkien estate. (Conversely, I've not seen anything that explicitly indicates the Tolkien estate is aware of the site, but that would seem rather unlikely that it weren't.) Does the Encyclopedia of Arda stand or fall with Steve, or is it a qualitively different case? If so, why? --CJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 12:00:38 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:00:38 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: <003d01c8a4ff$a778d9b0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: >> [Lee]: > As the links and quotes show, *RDR* approached *Steve V.* and not the other > way round. > > And, as an aside, I've looked at almost 200 articles which all seem to have > the same text within them. Hmm--who was *really* the originator? Grin> > Alla: Thanks for the quotes. So you seriously believe that publisher can FORCE the person to enter a contract which said person has no desire to enter whatsoever, moreover to enter a contract that said person has serious legal concerns about? All that publisher has to say is don't worry it is going to be fine. I am afraid I don't. There may be contracts that person may have hard time to get out of, although even that is exaggerated IMO, but I have never heard of the contract that magically FORCES the person to sign it, except in HP books LOL. I mean I am not talking about situation when person is literally forced to sign with a gun or similar kind of duress, but you are not alleging that Steve signed under duress, right? RDR approached Steve, sure, but IMO you cannot hire somebody for the job unless their resume is already on the market. Have you read Steve's testimony at trial? Does his discussion with RDR sound to you as somebody who did not want to do it? And is in't it funny that he e-mailed JKR reps for a job as her editor and in a few months RDR comes along and he proceeds to publish his own? If I could speculate about his intentions, I would say that it sounds like sour grapes to me. Do not get me wrong, I do not like RDR AT ALL, I just do not see Steve as innocent in this whole affair. And heee, indemnification provision, sounds like very strong evidence to me that Steve knew he may be facing possibility of lawsuit and went ahead anyways. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 12:16:48 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:16:48 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Also, note that Steve V. says that he is one of FOUR authors > of the Lexicon, though I think he means the web Lexicon. No, he means the print Lexicon. If you read the trial transcripts, this topic comes up. Having been following this from the beginning, and having read a number of ultimately manifestly contradictory statements from both SVA and his publisher, I personally find it hard to have much sympathy for him--there are emails in the exhibits, that one can read on Justia, that I cringed reading, and I think I've pieced together motivation for the entire mess. But that all starts to get a little bit personal, unfortunately, so I'll leave it off here. On another topic: Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Could it be argued that the lexicon/encyclopedia market is one JKR > would "generally develop or license"? And yes, I think the fourth test falls in JKR's favor: she, after all, had made public her statements about doing an encyclopedia eventually, and Steve's own comments of long ago were along the lines of "only she has the right to do it, but boy howdy would I like to work on that!" (See: emails that made me cringe, above.) To expand it out, I think there is a kind of reference book that would be very useful yet only legally possible with the cooperation and permission of the copyright holder. The Lexicon does not substitute in the sense of providing a comparable literary experience, but it does provide all of the character information/fictional facts of the books, and things which do that, like Cliffs Notes, have to get permission of the copyright holder when the work is not in public domain. From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 13:44:29 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:44:29 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: References: <003d01c8a4ff$a778d9b0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: Alla: > Thanks for the quotes. So you seriously believe that publisher can > FORCE the person to enter a contract which said person has no desire > to enter whatsoever, moreover to enter a contract that said person > has serious legal concerns about? All that publisher has to say is > don't worry it is going to be fine. Ali: You're right about force. There was no forcing of anything on the part of either party. BUT SVA has been wanting to do this book but has been worried about copyright issues. RDR comes along and says that it's not a problem. Being in a position of authority on the matter, RDR's word holds quite a bit of weight. How can SVA be condemned for listening to them? I mean, my gut instincts is that the earth is flat and is not spinning into oblivion in the vastness of space. Someone comes along and says, "I'm not a scientist, but I work at NASA, and I know for a fact that the earth is round and spinning." I'm going to take this person's word for it because he's more of an authority than I on the subject, despite my gut saying that he's wrong. Alla: > RDR approached Steve, sure, but IMO you cannot hire somebody for the > job unless their resume is already on the market. Ali: Sure you can. Headhunters are notorious in the business world. If you can make a better offer and present a better case ... I can also think of several bloggers who never thought about publishing in a physical medium but, because their blogs got popular, got approached for (and accepted) book deals. SVA's name was out there thanks to the Lexicon, but that doesn't necessarily mean he put his resume on the market, per se. Alla: > And heee, indemnification provision, sounds like very strong evidence > to me that Steve knew he may be facing possibility of lawsuit and > went ahead anyways. Ali: Hm. Is that really a problem that he's smart enough to cover himself? I mean, doctors buy malpractice insurance even though they (most of them anyway) do work in good faith. Because America tends to be a very litigious-happy place, I'd actually say that SVA would be quite stupid to NOT put that clause in his contract (and in fact, I would wager that clause appears in many, many, many contracts) - forgetting JKR and remembering that WB is involved, I would worry about a lawsuit even if I *knew* I was in the right. And I have to throw it out there, because Steve mentioned it in another post, I generally don't read many (only some) of the opinion of the JKR supporters because they tend to be so emotional and not based in facts. Alla, despite your opinions being diametrically opposed to mine, you are one of the few whose opinion I still read because it's clear that you've formed your opinions from the facts (and this is clear from what you say, not because you say that you've read said facts, which many JKR supporters say they do but obviously haven't). My two cents. ~Ali From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 23 15:21:48 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:21:48 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: References: <003d01c8a4ff$a778d9b0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: <004b01c8a555$bff0ed60$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Alla]: | Thanks for the quotes. So you seriously believe that publisher can | FORCE the person to enter a contract which said person has no desire | to enter whatsoever, moreover to enter a contract that said person | has serious legal concerns about? All that publisher has to say is | don't worry it is going to be fine. [Lee]: It's possible. Let me put it as simply as I can in a very human perspective. Remember, of course, humans are not perfect and we're going to mess up on even the stupidest things. :-) Steve V. has this web site which is a fantastic reference for books we all love; site has received praise and accolades even from JKR, the author of these books. Steve is also protective of said site, asking people not to copy anything from it, etc., because he (1) doesn't want to risk copyright infringement to the author's work and (2) doesn't want to be pulled into such a problem. This is strictly a hobby and, hopefully, a help to fans of the books. I'm sure it's a surprise to him knowing JKR is also using it...wow! And he gets letters and email from fans asking him to publish a print version of this site...something which could be carried around with the books, etc. Steve refuses because, again, that copyright thing. Now, along comes this publisher who tries to convince Steve to publish this print form of his site, but Steve isn't sure this is such a good idea; the publisher assures him that what's going to be published isn't a problem because of the Fair Use thing. Publisher says that since this is an encyclopedia everything will be fine. Imagine Steve's quandary...I'm sure there's a part of him that would just love to see publication, but the other part of him fears there might be a problem. So, he satisfies both parts by insisting on protections by the publisher. He'll put it together, but it will be the publisher's job to ensure the legality of the thing and defend if anything goes wrong and pay for any damages to himself. (good idea since expenses of defense can be astronomical.) So, he's not just jumping into the act of getting the Lex published; he's trying to ensure that this is really *not* going to be a problem, trusting, perhaps naively, that the legal guys at the publisher know what's right and what's not and are treating him straight. Now, don't forget the biblical ref of the serpent, and RDR is that serpent who tempted Steve with assurances that there would be no problems. Of course, RDR sees a bit of money, here, but no where as much as WB, etc., but there is a bit and, of course, there's a toe into the doorway of the HP universe which has become so popular. Now, this "serpent" tempts Steve, as I say, giving him everything he wants to here in a lovely contract including the protection he has insisted upon should anything go amiss. Steve, trusting and hoping that the publisher is being straight with him and that he's not breaking any laws, signs this contract and goes ahead with the selecting and editing of the material. Now doubt, the serpent--uh--publisher has said that Steve should just stick to the compiling and they'd do everything else. Then, all hell breaks loose. The publisher is approached with a Cease & Desist and they don't honor it. Question is, if Steve had been approached directly by JKR, would he have ceased? Probably, without RDR egging him on and assuring him that there was no breaking of laws, he would of honored the C&D and all would be well. But, it didn't happen that way and Steve is now in the middle of a most unpleasant battle. As far as getting out of the contract, if Steve had the time, money and lawyers, he could possibly sue RDR for deceiving him, but, again, that would be touchy, time-consuming and *expensive*! So, could Steve have gotten out of the contract? Not without a huge hassle. Does he wish now that he hadn't signed the contract and/or had done more research before signing? Probably a big *Yes*. Like I say, Alla, you can think what you want. I can't change your mind nor would I wish to do so. I can only offer you the reasons I believe and feel what I do. And I think and feel that even the best informed can end up ensnared by one who can give things just the right twist. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 18:13:59 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:13:59 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <480F7C67.8080200@yahoo.com> me: > Could it be argued that the lexicon/encyclopedia market > is one JKR would "generally develop or license"? nrenka: > And yes, I think the fourth test falls in JKR's favor: > she, after all, had made public her statements about > doing an encyclopedia eventually Hmm, that's not how I read the decision. "Generally" means "usually" or "often", and the decision is talking about potentially infringing works encroaching on corollary markets that are often subsequently exploited or developed. For example, authors often subsequently make movie deals. Movie studios "generally" license ancillary merchandising rights. And so forth. Tolkien licensed the movie rights to LotR. Larry Niven likewise for his Ringworld series. JKR licensed the movie rights to HP. The Lewis estated licensed the movie rights for Narnia. Or vice versa. The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises have licensed book rights for their respective universes. So book and motion picture markets are quite commonly cross-developed. Thus my question above meant, "Do creators of fictional worlds generally develop -- or license for development -- encyclopedias of their fictional creations?" And to answer to that, as far as I can tell, is "No." In fact, the *only* case I can think of is JKR herself. True, there *are* encyclopedias for many fictional worlds -- The Tolkien Illustrated Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Known Space, The Unauthorized Narnia Encyclopedia, and so forth. But with the single exception of JKR's work-in-progress, none of them (AFAIK) was developed or licensed by the copyright holder. From the Wikipedia article on the Seinfeld case. "If the derivative market was one that the copyright holder would generally develop or license, a secondary author would be barred from entering it." This would include such things as movie rights for books, or book and merchandising rights for movies, since such cross-licensing is common. But the subsequent sentence is equally important: "On the other hand, if the market was one generally protected by fair use, such as criticism, parody, or academic scholarship, the copyright holder could not enter those markets and attempt to preclude secondary authors from entering." The argument is that SVA's lexicon falls into this camp. As such, then, JKR's desire to enter the encyclopedia market for her work does not bar RDR/SVA from also entering the same market. Claims of the original complaint ("Mrs. Rowling has sought to reserve her exclusive rights to do so") to the cotnrary notwithstanding, JKR would have no exclusive right to this market. CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 01:25:05 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:25:05 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > In fact, the "Chinese Fireball" entry is merely a list of canon "facts" (appearance, habitat, etc.) in the same format used for all the other dragons. There's not the faintest hint of plagiarism, and the fact that she invented it (It no longer exists solely in her imagination) is irrelevant. Nora replied: > Actually, I don't think it is. I've read so much about this whole thing that I can no longer remember anything to cite, but copyright law does, IIRC, protect these kinds of 'fictional facts', where the only source is from the copyrighted material. That's the issue where the Seinfeld trivia book got whacked. I don't know whether the trivia book quoted the facts in the exact wording which they appeared as dialogue in the show--I'm guessing not--but they did lose that case. Carol responds: Ideas aren't copyrightable. Can you find a link to a discussion of "fictional facts" that might be relevant? I'm pretty sure that the issue is wording. (JKR, as you probably know, views the Lexicon as being mostly her own words. I don't want to repeat points already made, so I won't go into any more detail here. This thread is a new one; a number of others explore the controversy in more detail, and everything I say here presumes that the reader has read my previous posts.) Nora: > Another point that's come up, the massive amounts of work involved in the Lexicon, are also, I think, irrelevant to copyright Carol responds: Yes. We've already discussed that, and I think we've come to a consensus on that particular point. (The amount of work that JKR has done is equally irrelevant.) The four points involved in a Fair Use decision are listed in numerous posts. Amount of work is, of course, not one of them. Carol, hoping that Nora will provide links to those other cases (my own links mostly involve copyright law in general) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 02:10:45 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:10:45 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: <480DA5D2.9080409@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Goddlefrood wrote: > > > It may be that JKR is concerned that the Lexicon is substantially similar to her proposed encyclopaedia, and that certainly appears to be the case from the evidence at the hearing. LeeK. replied: > OK, I admit I haven't read the text of the actual legal complaint (legal documents bore me to distraction). But what you seem to be suggesting is the core of JKR/WB's complaint is that Steve's lexicon violates the copyright of a manuscript that a) is unpublished (and presumably unavailable to Steve); and b) is more recent than the website. > > As the text of the lexicon is (apparently) substantially copied from the website, it predates JKR's encyclopedia (prossibly even any rough drafts she may have made). Arguing that a pre-existing text could violate the copyright of a text that didn't even exist at the time the lexicon was written seems strange indeed. Any coincidence, in that case, between the newer text (JKR's encyclopedia) and the older text (the lexicon) would strongly suggest it is JKR who is in violation of copyright, unless you believe in time machines. Carol responds: I doubt that JKR would be in violation of copyright since I doubt that she intends to quote from the Lexicon (maybe she would have done so had it not been for the lawsuit, but that's neither here nor there). I agree with the rest of the quoted portion of Lee's post, and I'd like to add that there appears to be little or no resemblance between JKR's contemplated HP encyclopedia, the so-called Scottish Book, and the Lexicon, which she has criticized for its rearrangement of her materials. (She's called it alphabetical, but as I've said several times, it's actually organized by categories, with alphabetical listings within subcategories.) JKR's contemplated book, in contrast, will not only contain material not yet published that Steve V. and his collaborators (whose work may not even appear in the printed version of his book, or the manuscript that now exists) can't possibly have access to (some in JKR's heavily guarded notes, some still in her head and perhaps not even thought out yet, such as her explanation for the "missing twenty-four hours" that she's not even sure are missing); it will also have a completely different arrangement. In an interview after DH came out, she described the arrangement that she's contemplating but has not yet committed herself to: "JN: Now, I have to ask, when you do go back and you do, in ten years, so be it, do The Scottish Book, are you thinking more in line of a, like an account of events or more like small stories for things. "JKR: To be honest, John, at the moment, I'm not gonna say "don't hold me to this", but you know, I'm just gonna say "this might change". But I imagined it as half of it, I mean maybe on facing pages, but that might be difficult to do just through layout. But the ideal would be, to have, say, on the left-hand side you've got a page showing all your back story, extra details on characters, or an entry on wands showing what every character's wand was, and all of this stuff. And then I think also, it might be interesting to have information about the actual writing and what I discarded. So on one side, it's acting as though the whole world is true and I'm giving you extra information on that real world, and on the other side, we're admitting that it's actually fiction and I'm showing discarded plots, characters that didn't make it, problems in the plot. I think both lots of information are interesting, so it would be nice to unite both of them. "JN: Absolutely. That sounds like a student's textbook... "JKR: Yeah! Yeah. "JN: ...where in the margins, they have, you know, fact tables and things and then there's also snippets of stories that they rescued from things and then... "JKR: Well, it's actually--To be honest, I think the point of doing it, if I'm going to do it, it's about doing the absolute, definitive, giving-people-everything guide. " Anelli, Melissa, John Noe and Sue Upton. "PotterCast Interviews J.K. Rowling, part one." PotterCast #130, 17 December 2007. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1217-pottercast-anelli.html Carol again: Needless to say, the Lexicon is not "the absolute, definitive, giving-people-everything guide," nor does it claim to be any such thing. (I doubt that JKR can possibly give her readers "everything," either, especially given some of the conflicting information in the various books, but her *intention* is clear.) And the layout, with "back story, extra details on characters, or an entry on wands showing what every character's wand was, and all of this stuff" on one page and "information about the actual writing and what I discarded" on the facing page, is completely different from the Lexicon, which is, essentially, a compendium of fictional "facts" in the arrangement I've already described. Obviously, the Lexicon can't copy a work that doesn't yet exist The question is whether the Lexicon could rob her not yet extant encyclopedia of readers and the charity she intends to donate the profits to of revenue. (That last, I think, is an emotional appeal, and I doubt that the judge will consider it relevant.) At any rate, I think that the same people who buy the Lexicon (or would have bought it if the case hadn't come to trial) will also buy JKR's Scottish Book if it ever comes out. Both are geared toward hard-core HP fans, the only people who care about such things. And people who don't need or want the Lexicon because it's already online in a handy, easily accessible format or who are upset with Steve V. for "plagiarizing" or with RDR for its less than admirable conduct in numerous respects will still buy the Scottish Book because they will regard it as definitive. Even I will probably buy it just because it will be regarded as "canon" on HPfGu and give us something new to discuss. (I'm not about to accept her views on the characters as definitive because readers have every right to read critically and analytically and to arrive at their own canon-based conclusions which may differ in some respects from the author's expressed views, but if she gives me a list of who had what wand, or explains that Dumbledore did indeed know that Basilisks can Petrify as well as kill their victims, that information will be interesting and possibly useful. Anyway, sorry to bring in my views on critical reading here; my point is simply that the books (one of which doesn't even exist yet) are not particularly similar. It's perfectly reasonable for a reader to want both, but no one, or almost no one (unless they're thoroughly disillusioned with JKR as a person but still interested in the Potterverse and its characters) is likely to buy just the Lexicon under the delusion that it's in any way definitive. Just possibly including the word "unauthorized" on the cover and title page and indicating in a preface that the book in no way substitutes for JKR's intended Scottish Book might solve that problem before it starts. In any case, if there's a prospective customer of the Lexicon who isn't aware of the trial, that person must be rare indeed. Carol, longing for happier days From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 02:18:37 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:18:37 -0000 Subject: Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lee Truslow wrote: > (Something's not letting me snip, but I just wanted say that another potential source of HP compendiums, encyclopedias, quiz books, etc. may be the local library. Carol responds: Have you considered posting directly from the OT Chatter site as I'm doing? As you can see, I'm having no trouble with snipping. (Reading the posts from the site rather than from your e-mail also cuts down on clutter in your inbox.) Carol, just making a friendly suggestion From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 03:32:33 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:32:33 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > Ideas aren't copyrightable. Can you find a link to a discussion of > "fictional facts" that might be relevant? Linked right here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36126 > I'm pretty sure that the issue is wording. The issue is partly wording, but not only. Of course, the discussion of fictional facts there has to be taken with the rest of the four factor analysis, etc. etc. To answer another thread, instances of this kind of book for other fictional works tend to be authorized. One I can think of off the top of my head is that there exists a concordance for Steven King's _The Dark Tower_ series...which was written with his approval, blessing, and input by his research assistant. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 04:05:55 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:05:55 -0000 Subject: Back to the Fair Use Doctrine (Was: Thoughts from a Different Perspective) In-Reply-To: <480F7C67.8080200@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee Kaiwen earlier: > > > Could it be argued that the lexicon/encyclopedia market is one JKR would "generally develop or license"? > > nrenka: > > > And yes, I think the fourth test falls in JKR's favor: she, after all, had made public her statements about doing an encyclopedia eventually Lee again: > Hmm, that's not how I read the decision. "Generally" means "usually" or "often", and the decision is talking about potentially infringing works encroaching on corollary markets that are often subsequently exploited or developed. For example, authors often subsequently make movie deals. Movie studios "generally" license ancillary merchandising rights. > > Thus my question above meant, "Do creators of fictional worlds generally develop -- or license for development -- encyclopedias of their fictional creations?" > > And to answer to that, as far as I can tell, is "No." In fact, the *only* case I can think of is JKR herself. Carol responds: I agree. If we look at copyright law, the section immediately before the section outlining the Fair Use Doctrine, we can find the rights actually of the copyright holder (bear in mind that the doctrine, as I keep saying, was formulated in 1976): "[Section] 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: "(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; "(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; "(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; "(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; "(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and "(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission." Carol again: What this section means is not that the copyright holder is the only one who can, for example, make an audiotape ("phonorecord" in our outdated copyright law), but he or she is the only person who can authorize an audio copy of the work. (The two HP audiobooks exactly reproduce the HP texts and are, of necessity, authorized.) Similarly, the copyright holder is the only one who can authorize a "derivative work," such as a movie based on the book. Obviously, item 6 is inapplicable in JKR vs. RDR because it doesn't relate to literary works. Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are also inapplicable because no copy or performance is involved. (I don't mean quoted words but, say, a reprinting of the entire work, such as a pirated book.) The only exclusive right of the copyright holder that the Lexicon can be accused of violating, given that it's not an unauthorized verbatim copy or a movie or an audio performance or anything of that sort, is item 2, being a "derivative work." But what constitutes a "derivative work" is not specified, which takes us back to Section 107, the Fair Use Doctrine. Not to be redundant or anything, but here is the Fair Use Doctrine in its entirety: "[Section] 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [which relates to the visual arts, so I haven't quoted it], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ? "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; "(2) the nature of the copyrighted work; "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." So I don't know where the judge in the Seinfeld case got the idea that trivia books or games are usually developed or licensed by the copyright holder, but I'd sure be wary of trademark infringenment and the WB if I were so foolish as to attempt to market a trivia or videogame for HP. The producers of the films are also, obviously authorized by JKR. They're the ones who own all the trademarks! Fortunately, however, WB has backed off, and the case (the testimony may be over but a decision is still pending) hinges on copyright. And nowhere in copyright law itself can we find a definition of "derivative work." That's the reason for the "gray area"--all the judge has to rely on besides the sections I've quoted is legal precedent and testimony and, possibly, his own examination of the materials, that is, the HP books themselves and the manuscript of the print Lexicon. And, again, "the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching , scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." IOW, the copying of portions of a published work for "purposes such as" criticism, comment, scholarship, and research is acceptable as long as the secondary work falls within the four guidelines. And even if the work isn't exactly scholarship, it does involve research and it contains some commentary. After all, the list of purposes is not intended as restrictive, only to illustrate the kind of uses that would be acceptable for the particular type of copyrighted work (is it visual art, music, or literature? Is it fact or fiction?) and, although that's not specified, the nature of the secondary work as well. Anyway, to answer your question, I seriously doubt that any lawyer could plausibly argue that lexicons and encyclopedias are "generally developed" by their authors. As for "generally licensed," I would say that they're often authorized, but given the plethora of unauthorized encyclopedias and fan guides, I don't think we can safely say that they generally or usually are. Which takes us back to the fair use doctrine, which was formulated specifically to *protect* *unauthorized* use of quoted or copied material for the purpose of research, criticism, education, book reviews, etc. Without it, scientific researchers couldn't quote the results of other researchers' experiments. Teachers couldn't legally copy a short story from an anthology and distribute it to their students to study, even if a child had lost her textbook and couldn't afford a new one. Book reviewers and literary critics would be out of a job. Carol, still convinced that RDR, despite shoddy tactics, has the stronger case and worried about the consequences for similar works in the future From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 04:37:56 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:37:56 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > Ideas aren't copyrightable. Can you find a link to a discussion of "fictional facts" that might be relevant? > > Linked right here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36126 Carol: Thanks for the link. But, as Lee has already argued, a book of Seinfeld trivia, which depends *entirely* on the TV show Seinfeld for its existence, with the only new material being wrong answers, is completely different from an encyclopedia or Lexicon both in its nature and its usefulness. The trivia game was intended as entertainment and was regarded as impinging on the TV show itself, which is also a form of entertainment. (I'm not sure that I agree with the reasoning in the decision, though I do agree that it's copyright infringement.) But the Lexicon supplements and to some degree clarifies the HP books (and certainly provides a handy reference when you can't remember the chapter in which a particular incident occurs!). It's intended to inform, not entertain, so it doesn't really compete with the HP books themselves. (Unlike Cliff's Notes and similar works, which are clearly derivative and need to be authorized, the Lexicon can't substitute for a reading of the HP books. It would only confuse, or perhaps arouse the curiosity of, a nonreader of the HP books, who would have only the vaguest idea of the conflicts and incidents and relationships in the books.) Nor, as I've argued in another post, do I think that it impinges on or substitutes for JKR's unwritten encyclopedia, as she is arguing. Carol earlier: > > I'm pretty sure that the issue is wording. Mora > The issue is partly wording, but not only. Of course, the discussion of fictional facts there has to be taken with the rest of the four factor analysis, etc. etc. Carol responds: The pie chart is about words, as I understand it. JKR is claiming that the "work" is entirely hers because the Lexicon is mostly her own words or very close and unacknowledged paraphrases. The four factors (listed elsewhere) say nothing about "fictional facts," nor is such a concept mentioned in the fair use doctrine. As far as ideas are concerned, let me quote once again from "The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing," second edition (MLA being the Modern Language Association): "Like verbatim copying, close paraphrasing of protected expression can constitute copyright infringement if the borrowing does not meet the criteria for fair use. *The ideas contained in a work*, though, in contrast to the original expression, *may be freely used without risk of copyright infringement*" (21.1.13, p. 44). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36039 Carol: Granted, use of someone else's ideas without citing your source is plagiarism, but that's not the same thing as copyright infringement. As for "fictional facts," the use to which they are put matters. Steve V. isn't trying to entertain his readers (one or two semi-humorous asides, which JKR seems to object to, notwithstanding), nor is he parading those "fictional facts" as his own creations or using them in a book that claims to be a real Harry Potter book, as authors all over China are doing. He is simply compiling information about them in a systematic way, and, where necessary (as with the characters as opposed to the "Fantastic Beasts"), adding summary or analysis, along with perhaps too many verbatim quotes. Carol, apologizing for going over old ground but believing that copyright law and the Fair Use Doctrine are the heart of the matter From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 04:53:01 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:53:01 -0000 Subject: Back to the Fair Use Doctrine (Was: Thoughts from a Different Perspective) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > (bear in mind that the doctrine, as I keep saying, was > formulated in 1976) Goddlefrood: Just in respect of this bit, it is not true that it was ALL formulated in 1976. There have been several amendments. The full Act with amendments and when they were made is online and would be produced by a search for Copyright Act of 1976 in inverted commas. 106 in particular has had several additions. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 05:35:35 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:35:35 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: That case and that book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48101C27.5040709@yahoo.com> > Nora: > Actually, I don't think it is. I've read so much about this whole > thing that I can no longer remember anything to cite, but copyright > law does, IIRC, protect these kinds of 'fictional facts' Carol responds: > Ideas aren't copyrightable. Can you find a link to a discussion of > "fictional facts" that might be relevant? CJ now: She referred to the Seinfeld trivia case. There is a good discussion of it at Wikipedia. It appears that the judge ruled, in response to an argument of the defense, that fictional facts *can be* (though not necessarily *are*) held copyrightable. However, I don't think that decision sets any precedent for at least two reasons: 1. It was not a piece of judicial reasoning in its own right, but simply a response to a defense claim. 2. It is not germaine to the main reasoning of the decision. --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 05:36:37 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:36:37 +0800 Subject: The Trial -- My Prediction: JKR wins/loses Message-ID: <48101C65.8010402@yahoo.com> So I've been doing some reading of the trial transcripts over at Leaky, and court documents at Justia. And in the service of making a complete and utter fool of myself in public, I'm going to toss out my predictions: 1. The judge will rule against RDR/SVA. 2. There will be no appeal. 3. The only party who will NOT be happy with the decision will be JKR/WB. If one thing is apparent from the transcripts and court documents, it's that the plaintiffs have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove that the lexicon is little more than a cut-n-paste hack of JKR's works. As evidence they have offered example entries such as the Sorting Hat and Acromantula. It would certainly appear, to my eye, that the near-verbatim resemblance to JKR's writings for these two entries would constitute plagiarism and, in all likelihood, copyright infringement. I haven't bothered with any detailed comparisons myself; I am simply assuming in that the entries cited are representative of the lexicon as or, at the least, there are a sufficient number of similar passages as to constitute a significant problem for the defendants. I predict the plaintiffs will be successful in their attempts to demonstrate copyright infringement based on this argument, thereby winning the battle and losing the war. In proving their case, they will give the judge an out to rule against the defendants based on the particulars of the case without having to touch on principles (such as, are lexicons in general protected fair use?) or delve into grey areas of copyright and fair use. Winners: 1) RDR/SVA. Even though they lose the case, they win. Since the judg won't rule on whether , in principle, they can publish a lexicon, only that they can publish *this* lexicon in its current form, the easiest and quickest solution will be to simply rewrite the offending entries and then publish. RDR/SVA will not appeal the decision. 2) The judge. As mentioned above, the judge will avoid having to swim around in murky (and hence, controversial) Fair Use seas. This will give both parties less opportunity to appeal, and hence more likely that the decision will stand. I'm not a judge, nor do I know any, but, being human beings, I suspect they hate to see their decisions overturned. Loser: JKR/WB. Even though the ruling goes in their favor, they don't get what they really want, which is a ruling, on principle, that lexicons/encyclopediae are infringing works. Hence, under this ruling, the defendants, after rewriting their book, will be free to publish (barring a new lawsuit). In addition, as the putative winners in the case, it will be very difficult for the plaintiffs to appeal. OK, there it is -- my prediction. JKR/WB lose by winning, there is no appeal, and the lexicon (albeit a heavily rewritten version) gets published eventually. Feel free to throw this prediction back in my face when I turn out to be utterly and abysmally wrong. --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 07:51:35 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:51:35 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Back to the Fair Use Doctrine (Was: Thoughts from a Different Perspective) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48103C07.6060006@yahoo.com> Hi, Carol. I'm in agreement with the bulk of your post. I only wanted to comment on this: > So I don't know where the judge in the Seinfeld case got > the idea that trivia books or games are usually developed or > licensed by the copyright holder I don't think he did. From the Wikipedia discussion of the case: "If the derivative market was one that the copyright holder would generally develop or license, a secondary author would be barred from entering it. On the other hand, if the market was one generally protected by fair use, such as criticism, parody, or academic scholarship, the copyright holder could not enter those markets and attempt to preclude secondary authors from entering." The argument was a hypothetical one, not a ruling on the merits of the Seinfeld book. If the Wikipedia description is accurate, at least. There's a link to the actual text of the decision, but I haven't looked at it. CJ From malra at shaw.ca Thu Apr 24 16:12:11 2008 From: malra at shaw.ca (Teri Gardner) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:12:11 -0700 Subject: Thoughts from a different perspective Message-ID: <4ACCCB6BED93433EAC3F94CD30A93F85@TeriPC> Hi all, I've been reading everyone's comments and thoughts on the SVA/RDR vs JKR/WB case and I had a few questions (I haven't been able to read all the Justia documents). When RDR approached SVA regarding publishing the Lexicon book, did SVA seek out an agent and/or lawyer that specialised in copyright to double check the possibilities of a lawsuit or did he just ask for the indemnity clause to be inserted and then blindly sign the contract? Or, even worse, trusted RDR's lawyers to give him appropriate advice. I'm hoping he DID seek out at least some independant legal advice, but I've not heard that he had. I was just wondering if anyone knew. See, from what I understand from another source reporting on the case and who has broken down the contract that SVA signed, despite the indemnity clause in SVA's contract, there is also a clause that talks about the copyrightability of the work SVA took his information from. In other words, that none of the material in the Lexicon Book is copyrightable to JKR. (I hope I'm making sense here.) Now this could be shoddy contract editing and review on the part of the lawyers/agents involved (if there were any) but what this clause means is, if the Lexicon is found to be in violation of copyright, then RDR can effectively sue SVA for breach of contract and in and possibly seek to recover their money from the lawsuit because he handed them a book that infringed on the copyright of JKR. Whups. Even if this is a matter of shoddy contract negotiation and the clause was meant to be removed, the fact remains, it's still in there and RDR has an out should things not go their way. This effectively means SVA is screwed if they decide to pursue this course of action. If the US courts are anything like the Canadian (and I'm given to understand that they very much are), intention in a contract is not even considered, it's what is in the document that is and it is what the parties signed and agreed to. I really do hope that SVA was remotely smart enough to seek his own independant counsel. I think I'm going to have to side with Alla on a good chunk of this. SVA was not forced into signing a contract and if he really had misgivings about the content and whether or not he should publish a book, which he was asked not to when he approached JKR about it, he should have found himself a good lawyer to discuss the repercussions if things went ahead. I don't see him as a little guy victim who is just a loyal fan and got shafted by RDR, WB, and JKR. There has to be some personal responsibility there. The man is 50 years old for cryin' out loud and should have all his ducks in a row before going ahead with this. And if he trusted RDR's lawyers to look out for his best interest in any of this, he's in for a very rude awakening. He may not be as culpable as RDR in all, but he can't shove all of the blame onto them. The fact that he has attempted too can put him in a worse position than he's already in, especially if he wants to be published in the future. Teri [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 17:53:23 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:53:23 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol: > > Thanks for the link. But, as Lee has already argued, a book of > Seinfeld trivia, which depends *entirely* on the TV show Seinfeld > for its existence, with the only new material being wrong answers, > is completely different from an encyclopedia or Lexicon both in its > nature and its usefulness. > But the Lexicon supplements and to some degree clarifies the HP > books (and certainly provides a handy reference when > you can't remember the chapter in which a particular incident > occurs!). Well, that's the complaint of JKR and her team--that the Lexicon does not really supplement and/or clarify the books. It certainly doesn't follow any form of academic procedure in how it cites its references, either to the books themselves or to what scanty etymologies and commentary there is in the book. (Remember, the book is not the website, it's much trimmed down, and a lot of the stuff that would be obvious fair use is gone.) > the Lexicon can't substitute for a reading of the HP books. It would > only confuse, or perhaps arouse the curiosity of, a nonreader of the > HP books, who would have only the vaguest idea of the conflicts and > incidents and relationships in the books.) The Lexicon doesn't substitute for the pleasure of reading the books, but you could definitely use it to crib the plot and enough about the characters to fake your way through some knowledge of the work. > The pie chart is about words, as I understand it. JKR is claiming > that the "work" is entirely hers because the Lexicon is mostly her > own words or very close and unacknowledged paraphrases. > > The four factors (listed elsewhere) say nothing about "fictional > facts," nor is such a concept mentioned in the fair use doctrine. That was the point of the Castle Rock (Seinfeld) court decision--that these fictional facts are indeed protected expression, and thus are what's at stake in terms of how much can be used and still fall under fair use. This is what hits so hard in the third factor, on this case--he's taken so much of the original, which per Castle Rock, includes the details/facts, not only the exact wording. (Quote from the MLA): > "Like verbatim copying, close paraphrasing of protected expression > can constitute copyright infringement if the borrowing does not meet > the criteria for fair use. *The ideas contained in a work*, though, > in contrast to the original expression, *may be freely used without > risk of copyright infringement*" (21.1.13, p. 44). I read that totally differently, in this case: I take it to mean that I can, for instance, use Pierre Bourdieu's sociological theories about taste and the positioning of authors, if properly cited, without violating his copyright. That's a different animal than taking a work of fiction and rearranging the text slightly to create a giant list of all the details involved in and unique to that work of fiction. Someone who actually IS a lawyer (and involved in fandom) weighs in here: http://praetorianguard.livejournal.com/279321.html#cutid1 One relevant bit, with some snips made from the original: "To my mind, this is purely Castle Rock. Castle Rock is the famous Seinfeld Aptitude Test case, where the defendant created a trivia book from fictional facts about Seinfeld. The court said, oh no you didn't, found them infringing for taking someone else's fictional facts and making a derivative work out of it, and held them liable. The defendant's argument in the Lexicon case is going to be to try to distinguish Castle Rock in two ways: (i) Castle Rock dealt with an entertainment book, not a purportedly educational book; and (ii) the Seinfeld Aptitude Test didn't transform anything, it didn't add value, it was merely derivative, and the Lexicon adds scholarly analysis. I don't think that'll fly, though certainly some legal scholars do. For me, the Lexicon adds so little to a recitation of JKR's fictional facts that I think the Southern District will find copyright infringement. It's merely an alphabetical arrangement of something she's already created with very little added. To me, that's derivative, not transformative, and I don't think it'll be enough for the Lexicon to be fair use. Is there value in arranging someone's fictional world into an alphabetical list? Absolutely. Does that mean it's fair use? Not at all. Did SVA and his team put a lot of work into this? Certainly. Does that mean it's fair use? Not at all. Moreover, even if you assume that this is scholarly, fair use requires that you not take more than necessary to create your analysis or commentary. As an, ahem, facetious example, I could quote the entirety of book seven and then add "Wow, I think she's awesome, but what's up with that silly epilogue?" Commentary? Sure. Fair use? No way in hell. I took far too much with respect to what I needed to support my commentary. I suspect that 91%+ is far too much for the limited commentary this provides." The derivative vs. transformational debate is at the heart of this as well, and that's where I come down on the side of JKR. IF this lexicon were to add commentary on every item, provide some well-researched citations about the sources of material, it could count as transformative, enriching the experience. As it is, I think it's simply derivative, and the law grants copyright holders exclusive rights to derivative works. I don't doubt that a reference work strictly based on the books could be useful, but I do think that only a copyright holder has the right to authorize that, much like how concordances of new translations or editions of works are prepared by the authors/editors of those works, or others who hold permissions. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 18:34:01 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:34:01 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a different perspective In-Reply-To: <4ACCCB6BED93433EAC3F94CD30A93F85@TeriPC> Message-ID: Teri: He may not be as culpable as RDR in all, but he can't shove all of the blame onto them. The fact that he has attempted too can put him in a worse position than he's already in, especially if he wants to be published in the future. Alla: I finally finished first day transcript, had been reading them out of order and still did not finish second and third day. I do not want to quote too much, but I just have to quote this, whole thing as you know is up on Leaky here. But here is the link again just to be safe. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday1.txt "Just two years before this case was filed, Mr. Vander 18 Ark was approached by two fans asking, as the e-mail on the 19 screen indicates, whether they could publish or it might be 20 possible to publish the Lexicon Web site in book form. And 21 Mr. Vander Ark said "as editor of the Lexicon, I get mail every 22 so often from fans asking me to publish the Lexicon in book 23 form so I've dealt with this question before. Basically, it is 24 illegal to sell a book like that. Jo has reserved all 25 publishing rights to her intellectual property. Which means 1 she is the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or 2 encyclopedia to her world. And since we're fans and supporters 3 of Jo, we wouldn't do anything that would violate her rights, 4 even if we could get away with it." Alla: Oh as far as I am concerned this speaks for itself indeed. No, of course it does not determine any liability, but boy it speaks volumes to me as to whether Steve knew what he was doing. And I am so pleased that this e-mail is in evidence for the judge to see. And I found it hilarious that lawyer for RDR addressed it in his own opening right away that Steve's understanding since had been corrected. I finished reading first day of trial transcript, I was sort of reading them out of order and decided to start reading in order. Two things ? I think plaintiffs did superb job showing how much Lexicon copied, in how many entries there are just no quotations at all, even if exact language from the books is there. I thought they also did great job showing all the books that they have no problems with and comparing entries on the same subject with entries on Lexicon. I found it to be brilliant idea to use "Idiot guide's to Harry Potter" as one of the books JKR has no problem with and explain why. I found defense attempt to show differences on cross to be quite poor and attempt to show that JKR's lawyers forced some books out of the market that violated her copyright to be quite damaging to their case. And attempting to show that this book was exactly like Lexicon's or similar I found to be even more damaging, but as I said that is an opinion of someone who while a lawyer, does not deal with copyright law at all. I think that equity was established very well, but I still cannot make judgment as to the law and this is not a court of equity. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 18:35:34 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:35:34 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nora: Well, that's the complaint of JKR and her team--that the Lexicon does not really supplement and/or clarify the books. It certainly doesn't follow any form of academic procedure in how it cites its references, either to the books themselves or to what scanty etymologies and commentary there is in the book. (Remember, the book is not the website, it's much trimmed down, and a lot of the stuff that would be obvious fair use is gone.) Alla: I was just laughing when reading lawyer for RDR hilariously asking himself what the heck is this or something like that when reading Lexicon's quotation to HBP 10 when cross-examining JKR about Voldemort. Yeah, I think citations are not up to the level they should be in the index. Nora: The Lexicon doesn't substitute for the pleasure of reading the books, but you could definitely use it to crib the plot and enough about the characters to fake your way through some knowledge of the work. Alla: After reading first day testimonies I changed my mind, partially as to how strong the argument of Lexicon book hurting the market for JKR if this ever allowed to be published. I do not think it is silly anymore, especially in regards to FB and Qudditch through Ages. Plaintiffs claim that entries had been copied verbatim, basically all of them. Now of course I do not think that somebody who will buy that book could substitute its reading for reading the novels. But to substitute it for reading FB and Quidditch? Surely, why the heck not? I mean, I think plaintiffs also hit quite nicely on the differences between hard core HP fan who will buy as many books as the money allow ( that would be me LOL or close enough) and more normal fan, and these fans are plenty as well. Why would somebody who already has descriptions of all the beasts in the Lexicon book buy FB? I know I did not buy FB until I became completely erm passionate about the world. But I have hardcover and softcover of each book, several books in Russian and at least ten critical books, and I heard some people have much more. Alla From k.coble at comcast.net Thu Apr 24 20:49:02 2008 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:49:02 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] HP Lexicon vs. Encyclopedia of Arda In-Reply-To: <480EEA90.6080703@yahoo.com> References: <480EEA90.6080703@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7E48C8E9-E908-4559-9054-C4662B6BDD15@comcast.net> On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:51 AM, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Rather, I'm mindful of another site in nearly the same position as > Steve's -- the Encyclopedia of Arda, an encyclopedia of all things > Tolkien. It's very similar to Steve's site in that it's an > encyclopedia > of entries with summaries, descriptions and citations from Tolkien's > published works. It's been around for years, and its disclaimer > specifically states it is not authorized by or affiliated with the > Tolkien estate. > > While the EA has never attempted to publish a hard copy, it does > sell a > CD of itself which includes all site content in an offline interactive > format. That is, it is actually *selling* Tolkien content. And yet I'm > not aware that it has ever been bothered by the Tolkien estate. > (Conversely, I've not seen anything that explicitly indicates the > Tolkien estate is aware of the site, but that would seem rather > unlikely > that it weren't.) > > Does the Encyclopedia of Arda stand or fall with Steve, or is it a > qualitively different case? If so, why? > > --CJ Now Katherine: The comparison to Tolkien is valid, and it's a question that illuminates the whole "story behind the story" with the lawsuit. I've been working in publishing rights and marketing for years now. The problem with the Tolkien estate is that the books were not popular until many years after they were published, and then they were popular on the underground circuit for years. In the '70s and '80s there were many derivative works that were largely ignored by the rights-holders. In copyright court that set a precedent. If you don't defend your copyright vigorously, your ownership can become diluted and future suits can be hard to win. That's in large part why JKR is forced to do battle with RDR now. She's got to vigorously defend her property against all comers--even if they're people she likes, like Steve. (I truly think she likes folks like Steve and Emerson and Melissa.) If she doesn't fight everybody she soon won't be able to fight anybody and she'll be in the same position as the Tolkien estate. --Katherine [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 22:13:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:13:16 -0000 Subject: Back to the Fair Use Doctrine (Was: Thoughts from a Different Perspective) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > (bear in mind that the doctrine, as I keep saying, was formulated in 1976) > Goddlefrood responded: > > Just in respect of this bit, it is not true that it was ALL formulated in 1976. There have been several amendments. The full Act with amendments and when they were made is online and would be produced by a search for Copyright Act of 1976 in inverted commas. > > 106 in particular has had several additions. > Thanks. I do have a link to the entire doctrine, which is how I managed to quote sections 106 (what I thought was the relevant portion, despite "phonorecord" and no reference to, say, photocopying, much less computers) and 107, but I hadn't noticed the amendments. The Fair Use Doctrine, that is, section 107, *is* part of the original document, however. On a different and lighter note, being American, I would use double quotes, not "inverted commas," for a Google search. :-) Carol, wondering why single quotes are called "inverted commas" when one of those so-called commas is facing the wrong direction From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 22:52:25 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:52:25 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a different perspective In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48110F29.7050701@yahoo.com> Alla: > "Just two years before this case was filed, Mr. Vander > Ark ... [wrote] it is illegal to sell a book like > that. Jo has reserved all publishing rights to > her intellectual property. The plaintiffs have succeeded wonderfully in proving that SVA changed his mind about the infringing nature of his work. And their point is? Neither SVA's opinion then nor now carries any legal weight, nor is it legally binding. Just because he used to think it would be infringing does not obligate him in any way to continue to believe that or to behave as if he did. And things like this: > "Which means she is the only one who may publish any > book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world." are objectively either true or not, regardless either of SVA's opinions or of any "reserving to herself" JKR attempts. JKR's publishing rights are what they are under the law, she can't create right she didn't already have simply by "reserving" them. The lexicon is either legal, or it isn't. But that's for the law, not JKR, to determine. > ... boy it speaks volumes to me as to whether Steve knew > what he was doing. SVA's motivations are simply irrelevant. Again, either the lexicon is legal or it isn't, regardless of whether Steve was a complete scoundrel going in, or a saint who sincerely changed his mind. > And I found it hilarious that lawyer for RDR addressed it > in his own opening right away that Steve's understanding > since had been corrected. I found some of the plaintiffs' statements in their opening complaint equally hilarious. But then that's the job of a lawyer, isn't it? To make as many outrageous statements as possible in his client's favor, hoping something will stick. It's all about striking a pose, as Madonna used to sing. And judges are well-trained to see through postering. > Two things I think plaintiffs did superb job showing > how much Lexicon copied, in how many entries there are just > no quotations at all, even if exact language from the books > is there. Personally, I think this is where the plaintiffs' case will stand or fall. I agree that the passages the plaintiffs entered into evidence bear all the earmarks of both plagiarism and infringement. That doesn't mean I simply believe their claim of "91%", however. On the presumption that the JKR/WB lawyers presented the most egregious examples they could find, I suppose other entries were likely less infringing. But either way, my guess is if the lexicon is found to be infringing, it will be on this point; not on general principle, or because JKR has "reserved" anything to herself, but because it willfully copied JKR's work verbatim. (Whether it did so with or without citation is a matter of plagiarism, not copyright, and is also thus irrelevant.) But that's easy. RDR/SVA need merely rewrite the offending passages in different words and they're free to publish. > I found it to be brilliant idea to use "Idiot guide's to Harry > Potter" as one of the books JKR has no problem with > and explain why. So is JKR saying that if SVA's lexicon did less verbatim copying, she wouldn't have a problem with it? I'm having difficulty reconciling JKR's arguments viz. the Scottish book with those re: infringing copying. The impression I get is that she feels the very existence of the lexicon is a threat to the Scottish book. And yet Carol here has done a good job demonstrating that the lexicon is as different in format from JKR's encyclopedia as The Idiot's Guide is. So her allegations of infringement seem to fall down to the amount of verbatim copying Steve has done. A rewrite would fairly easily fix that issue, however, and yet not address the whole Scottish book question. CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 22:58:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:58:31 -0000 Subject: The Trial -- My Prediction: JKR wins/loses In-Reply-To: <48101C65.8010402@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > So I've been doing some reading of the trial transcripts over at Leaky, and court documents at Justia. And in the service of making a complete and utter fool of myself in public, I'm going to toss out my predictions: > > 1. The judge will rule against RDR/SVA. > 2. There will be no appeal. > 3. The only party who will NOT be happy with the decision will be JKR/WB. > > If one thing is apparent from the transcripts and court documents, it's that the plaintiffs have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove that the lexicon is little more than a cut-n-paste hack of JKR's works. As evidence they have offered example entries such as the Sorting Hat and Acromantula. It would certainly appear, to my eye, that the near-verbatim resemblance to JKR's writings for these two entries would constitute plagiarism and, in all likelihood, copyright infringement. > > I haven't bothered with any detailed comparisons myself; I am simply assuming in that the entries cited are representative of the lexicon as or, at the least, there are a sufficient number of similar passages as to constitute a significant problem for the defendants. Carol responds: I *have* bothered to compare them, and I agree that the Sorting Hat entry would require permission because so much of it is comprised of the Sorting Hat's own songs. But the Acromantula entry is perfectly legitimate, taking information from several sections of FB, not just the Acromantula entry, and never picking up JKR's own words. It is not plagiarized nor does it violate copyright law. The Sorting Hat entry, which is not *plagiarized* because it quotes accurately, presents the quoted material *as* quoted material, and cites the source(s), nevertheless probably does exceed the amount of allowable quoted material and RDR ought to have requested permission to use it (or asked Steve to rewrite it). Most publishers would have done so--at least the reputable scholarly publishers I've worked with would have done so. I'm not at all sure that RDR is a reputable publisher, and it's a shame that Steve V. ever got involved with them. Certainly, he should have consulted a copyright lawyer and/or asked permission from Scholastic (the edition he's citing) to use some of the longer quotes. However, as I've said before, the Sorting Hat entry is *not* typical of the Lexicon as a whole. So if your prediction that JKR will lose is based on your belief that the Sorting Hat article is typical (it isn't) and that JKR's lawyers' claim that the book is a cut-and-paste pastiche of JKR's words (it's no such thing), I think you might want to reconsider. (Or, at least, you might want to compare the Acromantula entry with FB and the Sorting Hat entry with other entries before accepting those accusations as fact.) Lee: > I predict the plaintiffs will be successful in their attempts to demonstrate copyright infringement based on this argument, thereby winning the battle and losing the war. In proving their case, they will give the judge an out to rule against the defendants based on the particulars of the case without having to touch on principles (such as, are lexicons in general protected fair use?) or delve into grey areas of copyright and fair use. Carol responds: That would be true if the Lexicon really did use JKR's words and claim them as its own. Unfortunately for their side and your assumption, though, the Lexicon sonsists mostly of (legitimate) paraphrase and summary, with some quoted material and a small amount of commentary--exactly the gray area that the judge was talking about. And the question of Fair Use is absolutely central if they want to prove that the Lexicon violates copyright law. Lee: > Winners: > > 1) RDR/SVA. > > Even though they lose the case, they win. Since the judg won't rule on whether, in principle, they can publish a lexicon, only that they can Carol: You meant "can't," right? Lee: publish *this* lexicon in its current form, the easiest and quickest solution will be to simply rewrite the offending entries and then publish. RDR/SVA will not appeal the decision. Carol: And go through the whole ordeal again? They won't get permission to publish and they'll just have to go through whole process again--and lose again, if your analysis is correct. However, I think that most of the Lexicon falls within Fair Use guidelines, as the judge will see if he actually compares the entries, and that Steve V. should agree, out of court, to rewrite any offending entries. (Just what's wrong with the Acromantula entry, I don't know. It doesn't pick up JKR's wording or even follow the same sequence of ideas as the FB entry. But, yes, the Sorting Hat entry needs to be rewritten, and other entries, for example, those on characters, contain large amounts of quoted material that can simply be cut. (And if I were Steve, I wouldn't publish the Lexicon in its current form, anyway, because some of the speculation is superseded by DH, and the information from DH needs to be incorporated. Lee: > 2) The judge. > > As mentioned above, the judge will avoid having to swim around in murky (and hence, controversial) Fair Use seas. This will give both parties less opportunity to appeal, and hence more likely that the decision will stand. I'm not a judge, nor do I know any, but, being human beings, I suspect they hate to see their decisions overturned. Carol: The judge has indicated that he expects an appeal regardless of who wins. But, money being a finite commodity for *most* people and even for most corporations, I agree that RDR won't appeal if they lose. JKR, though, will not take a defeat lying down. I really, really hope, for Steve V.'s sake and for the sake of the Fair Use Doctrine, that they settle out of court. Lee: > Loser: > > JKR/WB. > > Even though the ruling goes in their favor, they don't get what they really want, which is a ruling, on principle, that lexicons/encyclopediae are infringing works. Hence, under this ruling, the defendants, after rewriting their book, will be free to publish (barring a new lawsuit). In addition, as the putative winners in the case, it will be very difficult for the plaintiffs to appeal. Carol: Interesting idea, and certainly JKR won't appeal if her side wins. But I disagree that unauthorized lexicons/fan guides/encyclopedias, or rather their authors, will not be hurt if JKR wins, simply because a fair and objective examination of the Lexicon will show that, whatever its faults, it does not, with a few glaring exceptions like the Sorting Hat entry, cut and paste JKR's words. Lee: > Feel free to throw this prediction back in my face when I turn out to be utterly and abysmally wrong. Carol: Actually, I'd be perfectly happy if you were right. I just think that you need to take a closer look at the Lexicon itself and compare it to JKR's words before you make your predictions. Carol, not predicting any outcome but hoping for an out-of-court settlement for the sake of the Fair Use Doctrine From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 23:18:45 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:18:45 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a different perspective In-Reply-To: <48110F29.7050701@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > Alla: > > > "Just two years before this case was filed, Mr. Vander > > Ark ... [wrote] it is illegal to sell a book like > > that. Jo has reserved all publishing rights to > > her intellectual property. > > The plaintiffs have succeeded wonderfully in proving that SVA changed > his mind about the infringing nature of his work. And their point is? > > Neither SVA's opinion then nor now carries any legal weight, nor is it > legally binding. Just because he used to think it would be infringing > does not obligate him in any way to continue to believe that or to > behave as if he did. > > And things like this: > > > "Which means she is the only one who may publish any > > book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world." > > are objectively either true or not, regardless either of SVA's opinions > or of any "reserving to herself" JKR attempts. JKR's publishing rights > are what they are under the law, she can't create right she didn't > already have simply by "reserving" them. The lexicon is either legal, or > it isn't. But that's for the law, not JKR, to determine. > > > ... boy it speaks volumes to me as to whether Steve knew > > what he was doing. > > SVA's motivations are simply irrelevant. Again, either the lexicon is > legal or it isn't, regardless of whether Steve was a complete scoundrel > going in, or a saint who sincerely changed his mind. Alla: Eh, yes of course his motivations ARE irrelevant for deciding whether Lexicon is legal or not. I was responding to discussing hypothetical speculative scenario of innocent Steve trapped by bad RDR. And to me this e-mail is one of those things that shows ( to me) that innocent he is not. Lee: > I found some of the plaintiffs' statements in their opening complaint > equally hilarious. But then that's the job of a lawyer, isn't it? To > make as many outrageous statements as possible in his client's favor, > hoping something will stick. Alla: Um, no. Lee: >It's all about striking a pose, as Madonna > used to sing. And judges are well-trained to see through postering. Alla: You mean judges are well trained to see through crap? Sure they often are, but if you mean that judges are trained to completely ignore the emotional side of the case, then I would say... they sort of not always do. Let me try to explain. Without any doubt judges are supposed to consider law and law only and if there is a clear and unequivocal precedent, they will follow it or will risk of being overturned by higher court. But here is the thing if the case is grey and unclear and it can go either way, well in my limited experience of area of law ( no-fault insurance) yeah, sometimes sympathetic witness can help. For example, imagine witness coming to arbitration hearing after multiple surgeries on the face after automobile accident. Never mind that insurance company never received the bills, never mind that insurance company was only responsible for secondary coverage, after main one was exhausted and it was not. Would you like to venture a guess which way arbitrator ruled? What I am trying to say that sometimes showing the opposing party as, well dishonest, helps. Sometimes showing your client sufferings, well, helps - if it is true of course. THAT is why I was happy with this e-mail in evidence, not because it will bear any legal relevance, but because hopefully it MAY ( of course I cannot read judge's mind) cast doubts upon credibility of person who wrote it. Lee: > Personally, I think this is where the plaintiffs' case will stand or > fall. I agree that the passages the plaintiffs entered into evidence > bear all the earmarks of both plagiarism and infringement. That doesn't > mean I simply believe their claim of "91%", however. On the presumption > that the JKR/WB lawyers presented the most egregious examples they could > find, I suppose other entries were likely less infringing. Alla: I have absolutely no clue if 91% number is correct. It could be less, it could be more, but I do believe that it was a lot. > But either way, my guess is if the lexicon is found to be infringing, it > will be on this point; not on general principle, or because JKR has > "reserved" anything to herself, but because it willfully copied JKR's > work verbatim. (Whether it did so with or without citation is a matter > of plagiarism, not copyright, and is also thus irrelevant.) > > But that's easy. RDR/SVA need merely rewrite the offending passages in > different words and they're free to publish. Alla: If you are correct, absolutely, it is an easy solution for RDR. I hope for win of plaintiffs on the general principle, but again I refuse to predict anything. I happen to believe that win for the plaintiffs will be fair and just, but recently I had seen a case in the unrelated area of law (family law) that I was not involved myself, but friend was involved as a party, which in my opinion went again every possible notion of fairness, justice and screwed innocent child in the process. So trust me, as a lawyer, I do not believe that fairness equals legal necessarily. So even though I believe that, it does not mean I believe that judge will rule that way. Again, from the transcripts I really like the man, so if he rules against plaintiffs, I am sure he will do so because he will believe that it is legal and fair and just, me - I think it will be a mistake on his behalf So there could be multitude of factors which judge take into consideration. >Lee: So is JKR saying that if SVA's lexicon did less verbatim copying, she > wouldn't have a problem with it? Alla: My impression she would want less verbatum copying and more analysis as they demonstrated for other books on their sides. IMO From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 00:06:58 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:06:58 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nora wrote: > Someone who actually IS a lawyer (and involved in fandom) weighs in here: > > http://praetorianguard.livejournal.com/279321.html#cutid1 > > One relevant bit, with some snips made from the original: > > "To my mind, this is purely Castle Rock. > > The defendant's argument in the Lexicon case is going to be to try to distinguish Castle Rock in two ways: (i) Castle Rock dealt with an entertainment book, not a purportedly educational book; and (ii) the Seinfeld Aptitude Test didn't transform anything, it didn't add value, it was merely derivative, and the Lexicon adds scholarly analysis. > > I don't think that'll fly, though certainly some legal scholars do. Carol: A link to those scholars would be helpful! :-) Blog resumed: > For me, the Lexicon adds so little to a recitation of JKR's fictional facts that I think the Southern District will find copyright infringement. It's merely an alphabetical arrangement of something she's already created with very little added. To me, that's derivative, not transformative, and I don't think it'll be enough for the Lexicon to be fair use. Carol responds: But it *isn't* "merely an alphabetical arrangement of something [JKR has] already created. That's what her side is *claiming*, true, but if the print version resembles the online version, the only one I have access to, that description is inaccurate. It isn't alphabetical, for one thing, and the "rearrangement" within the various entries paraphrases or summarizes material from various chapters and various books so that the wording, except in quoted passages, does not resemble JKR's. Let me give an example. JKR actually wrote, "Harry threw his whole weight behind the sword and drove it to the hilt into the roof of the serpents mouth" (CoS Am. ed. 320). If I took those exact words and used them without quotation marks and without attritution, implicitly claiming them as my own in a fan guide entry on Basilisks or the Sword of Gryffindor or Harry Potter or whatever, I would be guilty of both plagiarism and copyright infringement. If, however, I quoted them exactly, using ellipses for omissions and square brackets for alterations, put them in quotation marks, and attributed them to their source, I would not be guilty of plagiarism. (I might still violate the Fair Use Doctrine if I used too many such quotations without permission, but the sentence in itself would not be a violation as long as the source was cited, etc.) By the same token, if I rephrased the sentence completely and wrote, "Harry killed the Basilisk by thrusting upward with the Sword of Gryffindor through the roof of the snake's mouth," or, more simply, "Harry killed the Basilisk with the sword of Gryffindor," (no quotation marks in my hypothetical entry because I would be paraphrasing), I would not be plagiarizing or infringing on copyright, though I would need to indicate that the scene occurs in CoS, and it would be a courtesy to readers and to JKR alike to cite the page or chapter number. I wrote my sentences without consulting the Lexicon because I didn't want to be influenced by it when I composed them. Here is the Lexcions' version; "Harry killed the basilisk by thrusting a sword through the roof of its mouth": rather like my first paraphrase but slightly less detailed. And the source, CS 16ff. (meaning CoS chapter 16 and following chapters), has already been cited. Neither plagiarism nor copyright infringement in that sentence or the surrounding material. That the Lexicon's Bestiary, like FB, follows an alphabetical arrangement is incidental; the entire Lexicon is arranged by categories and subcategoories, with alphabetical listings within the subcategory--a much more convenient arrangement than having "Basilisk" follow "Bagshot, Bathilda" (setting aside her corpse's possession by a snake). Blog: > Is there value in arranging someone's fictional world into an alphabetical list? Absolutely. Does that mean it's fair use? Not at all. Did SVA and his team put a lot of work into this? Certainly. Does that mean it's fair use? Not at all. Carol: But, my dear blogger, you haven't read the Lexicon, have you? It *isn* an alphabetical list. (As for the amount of work, also claimed by JKR, I think we all agree that it's wholly irelevant.) Blog: > Moreover, even if you assume that this is scholarly, fair use requires that you not take more than necessary to create your analysis or commentary. Carol: But research and scholarship are only representative examples of the kinds of works protected by fair use. No one thought to mention fan guides, but that doesn't mean that they aren't protected. A list of examples is only that; it doesn't preclude other types of work that didn't appear in the list from being included, any more than "fruits such as peaches, pears, and apples" precludes apricots and oranges from being classified as fruit. However, setting aside the word "scholarly, " I agree that "fair use requires that you not take more than necessary to create your analysis or commentary"--or your encyclopedia entry. And I don't think that the Lexicon *has*, in most cases (the Sorting Hat entry being a glaring exception) taken more of JKR's words than necessary. Blogger: > I suspect that 91%+ is far too much for the limited commentary this provides." Carol: 91-plus percent if the pie chart is accurate. But, as far as I can tell from the entries I've examined, it isn't. The blogger is taking JKR's lawyer's testimony as fact, not checking to see whether it's accurate. He's acting exactly like the Ministry of Magic assuming that Sirius Black is guilty or Severus Snape (apparently) assuming that Harry Petrified Filch's cat. "Innocent until proven guilty, Severus." And blogger. And JKR. *Examine the evidence to see whether the charges are true. Don't accept accusations as fact.* That's why we have a justice system--and a Fair Use Doctrine. Blogger: > The derivative vs. transformational debate is at the heart of this as well, and that's where I come down on the side of JKR. IF this lexicon were to add commentary on every item, provide some well-researched citations about the sources of material, it could count as transformative, enriching the experience. Carol: Not all of the entries have, or require, commentary. But all of them provide the source of the material. "Well-researched citations" doesn't, in fact, make a great deal of sense as a phrase, but the quotations and paraphrases in the Lexicon *are* cited, usually with a chapter number rather than a page number because the books exist in two quite different editions, and a page reference to Scholastic is quite useless to someone with a Bloomsbury edition of the same book. The *individual entries* are "well-researched" and the source material is cited. If the citations don't conform to, let's say, CMS or MLA format, that's probably because it's not a scholarly work and the intended readers are fellow fans who just want to know which chapter the information or quotation came from. Blogger: > As it is, I think it's simply derivative, and the law grants copyright holders exclusive rights to derivative works. Carol: But that's the whole question, isn't it? and whether it's "derivative" or "transformative" cannot be determined without a comparison of the secondary work to the original, copyrighted it is allegedly copying. Or is an accusation the same as a verdict? Blogger: > I don't doubt that a reference work strictly based on the books could be useful, but I do think that only a copyright holder has the right to authorize that, much like how concordances of new translations or editions of works are prepared by the authors/editors of those works, or others who hold permissions. Carol: Of course, only the copyright holder can *aurthorize* any work. It's just not clear whether an *unauthorized* reference work (other than a concordance or a translation, both of which are clearly "derivative") is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. And whether it is or not depends on how much of the original work it uses (with no allowable percentage having been established) and whether it clearly violates fair use by using quoted material without quotation marks. While the majority of the Lexicon is probably protected by the Fair Use Doctrine, portions such as the Sorting Hat entry which use substantial amounts of JKR's own words with little explanation, summary, or commentary, are not. Carol, wishing that people would stop taking the prosecution's testimony at face value and realize that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 00:23:20 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:23:20 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol, wishing that people would stop taking the prosecution's > testimony at face value and realize that the burden of proof is on the > accuser, not the accused > Alla: I certainly take FACTS that are presented as evidence as facts, I do not take arguments as facts, but when for example two entries, which exist are compared, I absolutely take them as fact. And erm... Carol, this is a civil case, the statement that you just made is incorrect on several levels. Just to give you one example - in my area of law, one of the most important burdens IS on the defendant and if and only if defendant proved it, the burden shifts to plaintiff. That means simply speaking that often I can loose a case even if plaintiff brings no rebuttal witness. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 00:33:09 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:33:09 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a different perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > I do not want to quote too much, but I just have to quote this, whole thing as you know is up on Leaky here. > > "Just two years before this case was filed, Mr. Vander Ark was approached by two fans asking, as the e-mail on the screen indicates, whether they could publish or it might be possible to publish the Lexicon Web site in book form. > And Mr. Vander Ark said "as editor of the Lexicon, I get mail every so often from fans asking me to publish the Lexicon in book form so I've dealt with this question before. > Basically, it is illegal to sell a book like that. Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property. Which means she is the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world. And since we're fans and supporters of Jo, we wouldn't do anything that would violate her rights, even if we could get away with it." > Oh as far as I am concerned this speaks for itself indeed. No, of course it does not determine any liability, but boy it speaks volumes to me as to whether Steve knew what he was doing. Carol responds: I disagree. Certainly, it shows that he changed his opinion as to whether publishing the Lexicon was legal, but I don't agree that it shows that he knew what he was doing. In fact, it's clear as day from this quotation that Steve at the time had no idea of what was and was not protected by copyright. Nowhere in copyright law are we told that "a guide and encyclopedia to her world" can only be published by the author of the original work. Only the author can *authorize* such a work, but that's not the same as "publishing" it (steve's word) or writing it herself. And the whole point of the Fair Use Doctrine is to protect *un*authorized works. Clearly, Steve V. should have informed himself regarding fair use and copyright law before making any such statement. And his ignorance of the law and the doctrine also enabled RDR to persuade him that he was wrong in the first place. I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I'm not at all sure that the Lexicon (with the exception of a few passages and entries) violates the law. Much of it seems to fall under fair use; other portions fall into a gray area not covered by the existing wording of the law. Knew what he was doing? I don't think so. He was afraid that he would be violating th4e law (JKR's "intellectual rights" being apparently boundless in his original view) and was talked out of it by RDR, who, he thought, knew more than he did about the matter. (Whether they did or not is beside the point.) The Lexicon may not violate JKR's intellectual rights at all, or only on a small scale in some places. The idea that a guide or encyclopedia not authorized by the author violates copyright in and of itself is simply mistaken. No such provision exists. An author's rights to her intellectual property are *not* absolute. The Fair Use Doctrine exists to allow uses of that work, including quoting and copying, within certain guidelines, to protect the rights of those who wish to write *about* the work. It's just a shame that Steve V. didn't know his own rights and his own limitations when he made that statement. Now he appears to be a liar and a hypocrite when he was incorrect in the first place. Carol, hoping that Steve's mistakes, failing to inform himself and trusting RDR without first checking with a copyright lawyer, don't cost him and other writers of fan guides too dearly From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 00:36:45 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:36:45 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > But it *isn't* "merely an alphabetical arrangement of something [JKR > has] already created. That's what her side is *claiming*, true, but > if the print version resembles the online version, the only one I > have access to, that description is inaccurate. The print is massively different from the online version. The print edition is also basically available as one of the exhibits via the Justia filings--I'm sorry I don't have a link for you handy, but it's findable, easily. Sorry if I get a little testy here, but so many people have made arguments based on the website, while the book is pretty different because it cuts so much of the material out. And the book is at stake, not the website. Here's a link to some of the exhibits: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/36/ At least one of the filings here includes some detailed comparisons of entries to the source material. > Carol: > Of course, only the copyright holder can *aurthorize* any work. It's > just not clear whether an *unauthorized* reference work (other than > a concordance or a translation, both of which are clearly > "derivative") is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. If it fails to fall on the transformative side, I think the answer is that it's not, when it takes as much as it does. But please. Go dig through Justia and read the documents. I'm looking now for more links, but I'm going to post now so I don't accidentally close a window. > Carol, wishing that people would stop taking the prosecution's > testimony at face value and realize that the burden of proof is on > the accuser, not the accused Actually, Carol, fair use is an affirmative defense, and must be proved by those who are looking to assert it--in this case, the defense. :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 00:40:05 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:40:05 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > And erm... Carol, this is a civil case, the statement that you just > made is incorrect on several levels. Alla: The better choice of words would be that your statement is a simplified generalisation of course. The bottom line is that I have no clue how it works in copyright law, but in no-fault law plaintiff's burden is so very LOW that it is not even funny, we often joke that all that plaintiffs have to win a case is show up. It is a joke of course but there is a part of truth in every joke. Defendant's burden is EXTREMELY high. From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 00:48:08 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:48:08 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > But it *isn't* "merely an alphabetical arrangement of something [JKR > has] already created. That's what her side is *claiming*, true, but > if the print version resembles the online version, the only one I > have access to, that description is inaccurate. Okay. This is THE TEXT of the Lexicon--at least what was submitted to the court after JKR's people finally got RDR to pony up the text, after tons of excuses and whatall. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/ This is Steve's declaration, and at the end you get a description of the filings, which are broken up because they're so long. (Look for the links on the bottom right hand side, under 'Attachment 1', etc.) Take a look here at attachment 2: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/2.html This is an alphabetical list. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 01:14:16 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:14:16 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: The Trial -- My Prediction: JKR wins/loses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48113068.10707@yahoo.com> Me: > I haven't bothered with any detailed comparisons myself; > I am simply assuming in that the entries cited are > representative of the lexicon.... Carol: > I *have* bothered to compare them ... the Acromantula entry > is perfectly legitimate I don't have a copy of the FB available, so I'm unable to make a comparison on the Acromantula entry. What I was doing was noting that the bulk of the plaintiffs' argument seems to be that a) the lexicon isn't sufficiently transformative; and b) it does way too much cutting-and-pasting of JKR's works. They didn't seem to be arguing that a lexicon is, in principle, infringing. I am therefore basing my prediction on the *presumption* that the plaintiffs will prevail on the copying point. If they don't, I think they have very little case left. > ... and never picking up JKR's own words. Again, I haven't been able to compare it myself. Much of the discussion I've read (most of it over at Leaky, where the participants are decidely biased) seemed to indicate it was copying verbatim. Again, I'm simply presuming that to be the case in fact. If, as you indicate, it *isn't* verbatim or nearly so, then the plaintiffs' case is weakened. > I'm not at all sure that RDR is a reputable publisher, and it's > a shame that Steve V. ever got involved with them. I'd never heard of them, but I've had a similar impression based on my readings in the trial documents and transcripts. Nevertheless, the trial is about legalities, not reputability. > So if your prediction that JKR will lose is based on your belief that > the Sorting Hat article is typical Not "belief", but presumption. I would assume the plaintiffs chose for their examples the most egregious entries, and that therefore other entries are at least less egregious, but I only own the HP series, not any of the companion works, so I'm simply allowing the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt on this point. In essence, it's my feeling that the copying issue is the strongest case the plaintiffs have; they either win the case here or they lose. Me: > Even though they lose the case, they win. Since the judg won't rule > on whether, in principle, they can publish a lexicon, only that they can > Carol: > You meant "can't," right? I mean that, assuming the judge rules against RDR/SVA, he will do so on this point, without the need or bother of having to address the thornier issue of whether a lexicon is in principle infringing. Me: > the easiest and quickest solution will be to simply rewrite > the offending entries and then publish. Carol: > And go through the whole ordeal again? Given that the bulk of the plaintiffs' case seems to rest on the copying argument, if a rewrite addresses that issue, they would need a new argument. And since WB's trademark issues have already been settled, would they be involved in a new trial? (Of course, I am asuuming the judge in this trial finds in favor of the defendants on the transformative issue.) > They won't get permission to publish and they'll just have to go > through whole process again--and lose again, if your analysis > is correct. Hmm? If they rewrite the infringing passages, they take away the plaintiffs' case; why woud they lose a second time on that point? Carol: > Interesting idea, and certainly JKR won't appeal if her side > wins. But I disagree that unauthorized lexicons/fan guides/ > encyclopedia s, or rather their authors, will not be hurt > if JKR wins, simply because a fair and objective examination > of the Lexicon will show that, whatever its faults, it does > not, with a few glaring exceptions like the > Sorting Hat entry, cut and paste JKR's words. I understand what you're saying, however our presuppositions differ here. You're beginning with the presumption the lexicon doesn't copy excessively, and that any ruling otherwise will be in error, and therefore egregious. And thus other guides, which *also* don't copy excessively, will be impacted. OTOH, my argument presumes that the lexicon *does* copy excessively. Therefore, there is no need for other guides' authors to worry, as long as they didn't copy excessively themselves. Once again, I'm simply *assuming* (not arguing) that the plaintiffs are correct on this point, because I believe it's the strongest argument they have. If the judge doesn't agree with them here, he won't agree with them anywhere else, and JKR will lose. Sorry, gotta run. CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 02:57:12 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:57:12 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > > I was just laughing when reading lawyer for RDR hilariously asking himself what the heck is this or something like that when reading Lexicon's quotation to HBP 10 when cross-examining JKR about Voldemort. Yeah, I think citations are not up to the level they should be in the index. Carol responds: He probably didn't know what "PA7" and similar citations meant, but any reader of the HP books would know that it means PoA chapter 7. that the Lexicon uses a citation system suited to its readers, in contrast to Chcago Manual of Style footnotes or Modern Language Association parenthetical citation has no bearing on whether it falls under Fair Use or not. Nor does the quality of the writing, which JKR alternately criticized and claimed as her own. Alla: > > After reading first day testimonies I changed my mind, partially as to how strong the argument of Lexicon book hurting the market for JKR if this ever allowed to be published. I do not think it is silly anymore, especially in regards to FB and Qudditch through Ages. > Plaintiffs claim that entries had been copied verbatim, basically all of them. Carol responds: Of course, that claim would relate only to Quidditch-related entries and the Bestiary section of the Lexicon, not to the work as a whole. I hate Quidditch, so let's look at the bestiary instead. (Someone else is welcome to look up, say, "Quaffle," and see whether there' any copying. I do want to make one small point regarding QTTA, however, which is that it's arranged in chapters (chronologically, IIRC), so there are not "entries" to copy as could happen rather too easily with regard to the Bestiary section of the Lexicon and FB. So *do* the Bestiary's entries copy FB outright? Let's examine one and see (and the purposes of this post require substantial amounts of quotation!). Let's compare the entries for "Banshee." The Bestiary says: "banshee creature from Muggle legends or mythology "Rating Unknown (PA7, GF21, FB) "A Dark creature with the appearance of a woman with floor-length black hair and a skeletal, green-tinged face. Its screams will kill. Seamus Finnigan is particularly afraid of banshees (PA7). The Bandon Banshee was supposedly defeated by Gilderoy Lockhart (CS6) but was actually defeated by a witch with a hairy chin (see CS16). The singer Celestina Warbeck performs with a backing group of banshees (DP)." There is, however, no comparable entry in FB, probably because a Banshee is classified as a spirit, not a beast. Consequently, the entry combines general knowledge with references taken from several sources. (I confess that I don't know what "DP" means, but I expect that I could easily find out by consulting the Lexicon's sources page. As for the "rating unknown" reference with three citations, I confess that tha't puzzling. I suspect that the cited sources discuss the MoM's rating system. Let's try an actual beast instead. Since "Basilisk" comes next (and I've been on a Basilisk binge lately at HPfGu), I'll try that (with my own commentary in square brackets): Here's the Lexicon entry, minus a copyrighted drawing from CoS that probably won't appear in the printed book: "Basilisk (the King of Serpents) more info in Fantastic Beasts - click here to order [Please note that he's actually asking people to order FB! Probably not possible in the print version. Also, the Basilisk as King of Serpents is common knowledge, meaning that it can be looked up in any reference work, and does not require a citation.] "creature from Muggle legends or mythology [general knowledge] "XXXXX (CS16 ff., FB) [sources cited; expects readers to be familiar with JKR's works to know the meaning of the X's] "A wizard-bred Dark creature of enormous power, this extremely poisonous giant serpent (up to 50 feet in length) is brilliant green in color with long thin saber-like fangs and bulbous yellow eyes (see more below). A basilisk can live for at least 900 years given an adequate food supply, and as it can eat most vertebrates (including humans), this is not difficult to achieve. The male can be distinguished from the female by the scarlet plume on its head, but basilisks are usually magically rather than normally bred. [Paraphrased from FB; JKR's wording is not picked up. The source, however, should be cited unless this information can be found in other reference works on mythological creatures.] "Basilisk-breeding has been outlawed since medieval times and in the present day falls under the Ban on Experimental Breeding, but this law has rarely been broken even by Dark wizards, since only a Parselmouth can control a basilisk. [Paraphrased from the entry in FB, with the exception of the reference to the Ban on Experimental breeding, which is discussed in the introduction and, IMO, does not really apply since the Basilisk is not a new species. Errors are beside the point, however.] "Of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land, there is none more curious or more deadly than the Basilisk, known also as the King of Serpents. This snake, which may reach gigantic size and live many hundreds of years, is born from a chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad. Its methods of killing are most wondrous, for aside from its deadly and venomous fangs, the Basilisk has a murderous stare, and all who are fixed with the beam of its eye shall suffer instant death. Spiders flee before the Basilisk, for it is their mortal enemy, and the Basilisk flees only from the crowing of the rooster, which is fatal to it." (CS16) [properly formatted quote with citation; however, the citation should indicate that CoS is quoting the imaginary library book from which Hermione tore a page.] [drawing of shed basilisk skin] "The phoenix seems immune to the basilisk's deadly gaze (CS16 ff.) {An inference drawn from the book; counts as commentary] "When unleashed by the Heir of Slytherin using Parseltongue, the basilisk that lived in the Chamber of Secrets searched the castle for its prey, Muggle-born students, which it apparently could identify by smelling their blood ("I smell blood..." the creature cried as it wandered the pipes). When its eyes were pecked out by Fawkes, it attacked Harry using its keen sense of smell. Harry killed the basilisk by thrusting a sword through the roof of its mouth. Harry's arm was pierced by one of the basilisk's fangs, the poison of which nearly killed him. [reasonably accurate summary of action in CoS 16, cited above. The creature hissed rather than cried "I smell blood" (among other things), a minor error that should be corrected, but hardly a matter for the courts. A chapter reference (chap. 8) should have been provided for the brief quotation, but that's not plagiarism or copyright violation, just sloppy writing.] "Apart from its specific magical powers and long lifespan, many of the characteristics of the basilisk follow naturally from its being a serpent (see). [A cross reference to another entry in the Bestiary] Like more mundane serpents, the basilisk sheds its skin at intervals, and its varied diet is typical of the larger snakes, which tend to pursue larger and larger prey according to their own size and capabilities. [common knowledge; no citation required] It's quite possible that had Harry both retained his wand and been more experienced in Defence Against the Dark Arts, he might have lost his battle against the basilisk in attempting to use Stunning Spells; [an inference or speculation; counts as commentary] although not explicitly stated, the basilisk's skin probably has the same armor characteristics as dragon skin, leaving its eyes and the inside of its mouth as its only vulnerable points. [more speculation; counts as commentary] Now the corresponding section of FB (which, unfortunately, I have to type, not cut and paste, so any typos are mine, as are any bracketed comments): "BASILISK (also known as the King of Serpents) "M.O.M. Classification XXXXX "The first recorded basilisk was bred by Herpo the Foul, a Greek Dark wizard and Parselmouth, who discovered after much experimentation that a chicken egg hatched beneath a toad would produce a gigantic serpent possessed of extraordinarily dangerous powers. [The Bestiary doesn't mention herpo and quotes another source for the chicken egg hatched under a toad.] "The Basilisk is a brilliant green serpent that may reach up to twenty feet length. The male has a scarlet plume upon its head. It has exceptionally venomous fangs but its most dangerous means of attack is the gaze of its large yellow eyes. Anyone looking directly into these will suffer instant death. [This information is used in the Bestiary entry but properly paraphrased.] "If the food source is sufficient (the Basilisk will eat all mammals and birds and most reptiles). The serpent may attain a very great age. Herpo the Foul's Basilisk is believed to have lived for close on nine hundred years. [This information is summarized and generalized in the Lexicon entry; Herpo is not mentioned.] "The creation of Basilisks has been illegal since medieval times, although the practice is easily concealed by simply removing the chicken egg from beneath the toad when the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures comes to call. However, since Basilisks are uncontrollable except by Parselmouths, they are as dangerous to most Dark wizards as to anybody else, and there have been no recorded sightings of Basilisks for at least four hundred years." [The information on illegality and on Parselmouths is paraphrased and rearranged. The rest of the paragraph is not used.] [scrawled comment in Harry's handwriting: "that's what you think"] As I hope you can see, any information taken from FB and used in the Lexicon's entry on Basilisks has been carefully paraphrased and rearranged. No echo of JKR's (or should I say Newt Scamander's) distinctive style remains. The entry is informative but not particularly entertaining, unlike FB. Nor has her wording been picked up. The source of any FB-based information not available from outside sources should be cited; the problem is that JKR has no monopoly on Basilisks, which are as much common property as Santa Claus, so its very difficult to tell whether anything other than Herpo the foul, the Department for Regulation and Control of magical Creatures, and possibly the red plume on the male Basilisk comes from JKR's own imagination (and the plume information comes from the CoS library book, not FB, and is almost correctly cited--I don't expect anyone but a literature scholar to know how to cite a source quoted within another source). The Bestiary entry contains supplemental information and some speculation and inferences. The information on Herpo the Foul has been eliminated and removed to the section on wizards; I haven't checked, but I assume that it's properly paraphrased, as here.The only problem, easily remedied, is that the paraphrased information is not credited to FB. One more pair of entries, if anyone is still with me. Let's do a short entry on a creature that JKR invented, the Doxy. Here's the Lexicon's entry: "Doxy (Biting Fairy) more info in Fantastic Beasts - click here to order [another FB ad, free advertising for the work JKR claims is being unfairly competed with] "XXX - Northern Europe and America "The Doxy is a small fairy-like creature that is covered with black hair. They have sharp venomous teeth (FB). Doxies are pests. They can infest houses, taking up residence in the draperies. Removing them requires a good supply of Doxycide. It's a good idea to have an antidote for Doxy venom on hand as well (OP6). [The description is condensed and paraphrased from FB; the supplemental information is paraphrased and greatly condensed from OoP.] The FB entry, by comparison, says: "DOXY (sometimes known as Biting Fairy) "M.O.M. Classification: XXX "The Doxy is often mistaken for a fairy (see page 16) though it is quite a separate species. Like the fairy, it has a minute human form, though in the Doxy's case this is covered in thick black hair and has an extra pair of arms and legs. The Doxy's wings are thick, curved and shiny, much like a beetle's. Doxies are found throughout Europe and North America, preferring cold climates. They lay up to five hundred eggs at a time and bury them. The eggs hatch in two to three weeks. "Doxies have double rows of sharp, venomous teeth. An antidote should be taken if bitten." Clearly, the Bestiary entry is adequately paraphrased. It's not plagiarism or copyright violation to pick up phrases like "sharp, venomous teeth," with or without a comma. The interesting detail about eggs is omitted, but the bit about antidotes and "taking up residence in the draperies" is nicely handled. No copyright violation there. No analysis or inference is necessary; this is an informative entry about an imaginary inhabitant of JKR's world; no one will be under the illusion that Steve V. invented Doxies. Anyway, I thought I'd attempt to show that the accusation about the Bestiary section of the Lexicon, and the Lexicon in general, uses JKR's words without quotation marks is just absurd. The paraphrases in the Basilisk entry should be credited. Those in the Doxy entry are fine. Carol, who would not have put a Banshee in a Bestiary From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 03:06:20 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:06:20 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: Let's try an actual beast instead. Since "Basilisk" comes next (and I've been on a Basilisk binge lately at HPfGu), I'll try that (with my own commentary in square brackets): Here's the Lexicon entry, minus a copyrighted drawing from CoS that probably won't appear in the printed book: "Basilisk (the King of Serpents) more info in Fantastic Beasts - click here to order [Please note that he's actually asking people to order FB! Probably not possible in the print version. Also, the Basilisk as King of Serpents is common knowledge, meaning that it can be looked up in any reference work, and does not require a citation.] "creature from Muggle legends or mythology [general knowledge] "XXXXX (CS16 ff., FB) [sources cited; expects readers to be familiar with JKR's works to know the meaning of the X's] "A wizard-bred Dark creature of enormous power, this extremely poisonous giant serpent (up to 50 feet in length) is brilliant green in color with long thin saber-like fangs and bulbous yellow eyes (see more below). A basilisk can live for at least 900 years given an adequate food supply, and as it can eat most vertebrates (including humans), this is not difficult to achieve. The male can be distinguished from the female by the scarlet plume on its head, but basilisks are usually magically rather than normally bred. [Paraphrased from FB; JKR's wording is not picked up. The source, however, should be cited unless this information can be found in other reference works on mythological creatures.] "Basilisk-breeding has been outlawed since medieval times and in the present day falls under the Ban on Experimental Breeding, but this law has rarely been broken even by Dark wizards, since only a Parselmouth can control a basilisk. [Paraphrased from the entry in FB, with the exception of the reference to the Ban on Experimental breeding, which is discussed in the introduction and, IMO, does not really apply since the Basilisk is not a new species. Errors are beside the point, however.] "Of the many fearsome beasts and monsters that roam our land, there is none more curious or more deadly than the Basilisk, known also as the King of Serpents. This snake, which may reach gigantic size and live many hundreds of years, is born from a chicken's egg, hatched beneath a toad. Its methods of killing are most wondrous, for aside from its deadly and venomous fangs, the Basilisk has a murderous stare, and all who are fixed with the beam of its eye shall suffer instant death. Spiders flee before the Basilisk, for it is their mortal enemy, and the Basilisk flees only from the crowing of the rooster, which is fatal to it." (CS16) [properly formatted quote with citation; however, the citation should indicate that CoS is quoting the imaginary library book from which Hermione tore a page.] [drawing of shed basilisk skin] "The phoenix seems immune to the basilisk's deadly gaze (CS16 ff.) {An inference drawn from the book; counts as commentary] "When unleashed by the Heir of Slytherin using Parseltongue, the basilisk that lived in the Chamber of Secrets searched the castle for its prey, Muggle-born students, which it apparently could identify by smelling their blood ("I smell blood..." the creature cried as it wandered the pipes). When its eyes were pecked out by Fawkes, it attacked Harry using its keen sense of smell. Harry killed the basilisk by thrusting a sword through the roof of its mouth. Harry's arm was pierced by one of the basilisk's fangs, the poison of which nearly killed him. [reasonably accurate summary of action in CoS 16, cited above. The creature hissed rather than cried "I smell blood" (among other things), a minor error that should be corrected, but hardly a matter for the courts. A chapter reference (chap. 8) should have been provided for the brief quotation, but that's not plagiarism or copyright violation, just sloppy writing.] "Apart from its specific magical powers and long lifespan, many of the characteristics of the basilisk follow naturally from its being a serpent (see). [A cross reference to another entry in the Bestiary] Like more mundane serpents, the basilisk sheds its skin at intervals, and its varied diet is typical of the larger snakes, which tend to pursue larger and larger prey according to their own size and capabilities. [common knowledge; no citation required] It's quite possible that had Harry both retained his wand and been more experienced in Defence Against the Dark Arts, he might have lost his battle against the basilisk in attempting to use Stunning Spells; [an inference or speculation; counts as commentary] although not explicitly stated, the basilisk's skin probably has the same armor characteristics as dragon skin, leaving its eyes and the inside of its mouth as its only vulnerable points. [more speculation; counts as commentary] Now the corresponding section of FB (which, unfortunately, I have to type, not cut and paste, so any typos are mine, as are any bracketed comments): "BASILISK (also known as the King of Serpents) "M.O.M. Classification XXXXX "The first recorded basilisk was bred by Herpo the Foul, a Greek Dark wizard and Parselmouth, who discovered after much experimentation that a chicken egg hatched beneath a toad would produce a gigantic serpent possessed of extraordinarily dangerous powers. [The Bestiary doesn't mention herpo and quotes another source for the chicken egg hatched under a toad.] "The Basilisk is a brilliant green serpent that may reach up to twenty feet length. The male has a scarlet plume upon its head. It has exceptionally venomous fangs but its most dangerous means of attack is the gaze of its large yellow eyes. Anyone looking directly into these will suffer instant death. [This information is used in the Bestiary entry but properly paraphrased.] "If the food source is sufficient (the Basilisk will eat all mammals and birds and most reptiles). The serpent may attain a very great age. Herpo the Foul's Basilisk is believed to have lived for close on nine hundred years. [This information is summarized and generalized in the Lexicon entry; Herpo is not mentioned.] "The creation of Basilisks has been illegal since medieval times, although the practice is easily concealed by simply removing the chicken egg from beneath the toad when the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures comes to call. However, since Basilisks are uncontrollable except by Parselmouths, they are as dangerous to most Dark wizards as to anybody else, and there have been no recorded sightings of Basilisks for at least four hundred years." [The information on illegality and on Parselmouths is paraphrased and rearranged. The rest of the paragraph is not used.] [scrawled comment in Harry's handwriting: "that's what you think"] As I hope you can see, any information taken from FB and used in the Lexicon's entry on Basilisks has been carefully paraphrased and rearranged. No echo of JKR's (or should I say Newt Scamander's) distinctive style remains. The entry is informative but not particularly entertaining, unlike FB. Nor has her wording been picked up. The source of any FB-based information not available from outside sources should be cited; the problem is that JKR has no monopoly on Basilisks, which are as much common property as Santa Claus, so its very difficult to tell whether anything other than Herpo the foul, the Department for Regulation and Control of magical Creatures, and possibly the red plume on the male Basilisk comes from JKR's own imagination (and the plume information comes from the CoS library book, not FB, and is almost correctly cited--I don't expect anyone but a literature scholar to know how to cite a source quoted within another source). The Bestiary entry contains supplemental information and some speculation and inferences. The information on Herpo the Foul has been eliminated and removed to the section on wizards; I haven't checked, but I assume that it's properly paraphrased, as here.The only problem, easily remedied, is that the paraphrased information is not credited to FB. Alla: So I left in your comparison of Basilisks unsnipped to suggest again that you are comparing WEB Lexicon and FB, which is IMO incorrect, since book and web version are QUITE different. I recommend comparing entries in the BOOK version which I linked to in the beginning of this thread and Nora linked again few posts upthread. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 03:25:10 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:25:10 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nora: > > > And erm... Carol, this is a civil case, the statement that you just made is incorrect on several levels. > Alla: > The better choice of words would be that your statement is a simplified generalisation of course. > > The bottom line is that I have no clue how it works in copyright law, but in no-fault law plaintiff's burden is so very LOW that it is not even funny, we often joke that all that plaintiffs have to win a case is show up. It is a joke of course but there is a part of truth in every joke. Defendant's burden is EXTREMELY high. > Carol: Thanks for the correction. I did actually wonder whether I was confusing civil with criminal law. But now what I'm wondering is, where is the justice in our justice system? And heaven help us all if Fair Use goes out the window. (I do understand, however, that JKR believes that she is protecting her rights, so I suppose I can understand why the defense would have to prove the client not guilty. (Thank God almighty the criminal justice system doesn't operate that way!) As for the print Lexicon being all that different from the online version, as Nora suggests, I recall RDR suggesting (rudely, I realize) that JKR simply print out the online version. In any case, Steve V. had no time to make substantial changes other than omissions. He could not have changed the format or the wording of the entries without a good deal of time and labor. Carol, hoping that Nora can identify the specific document in which the entries are compared as I've already spent more time than I should have comparing the Lexicon with FB From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 04:33:30 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:33:30 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol, hoping that Nora can identify the specific document in which > the entries are compared as I've already spent more time than I should > have comparing the Lexicon with FB Well, I linked you to the actual text of the Lexicon as is under dispute--which Alla had linked to at the beginning of this thread, shockingly enough, so the complaint that it wasn't available was...hasty. Here's another comparison chart: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/36/13.html From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 07:23:42 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:23:42 -0000 Subject: The Trial -- My Prediction: JKR wins/loses In-Reply-To: <48101C65.8010402@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- Lee Kaiwen wrote: > > ... I'm going to toss out my predictions: > > 1. The judge will rule against RDR/SVA. > 2. There will be no appeal. > 3. The only party who will NOT be happy with the decision will > be JKR/WB. > > If one thing is apparent from the transcripts and court > documents, it's that the plaintiffs have spent an inordinate > amount of time trying to prove that the lexicon is little more > than a cut-n-paste hack of JKR's works. As evidence they have > offered example entries such as the Sorting Hat and Acromantula. > It would ... would constitute plagiarism and, in all likelihood, > copyright infringement. > bboyminn: RATS! I had a nice long post written and was ready to [SEND] when suddenly my browser closed and I lost it all. Well, I'll try my best to duplicate what I intended to say, and we'll see if I can actually get it posted this time. As many who have been following the discussion know, I am somewhat sympathetic to SteveV, but at the same time I think he did screw up and I also think he realizes that. But put yourself in his position. He is an **unemployed** librarian who is a would-be writer. Along comes a publisher that absolutely assures him the Lexicon falls within fair use. How could he not be tempted by that? Some have suggested that he should have consulted a independent lawyer before signing the contract, but perhaps you missed the UNEMPLOYED part. It is easy to say consult a lawyer but how many of us have that kind of money laying around? Plus, it would seem the publisher's lawyers, who are after all lawyers, were reassuring him that it was OK. Unemployment frequently makes people make choices that they would never make if that had a comfortable cash flow of money. It doesn't excuse the choice he made, but it certainly does go toward explaining it. Next, the Acromantula entry is very short. In the context of the story and the series, there are only just so many reasonable ways you can re-arrange the words to describe an Acromantula. Go to the Acromantula reference and try to re-write it. Sure you can re-arrange the words into something less logical, but again, that is about the best anyone can do. As to the Sorting Hat entry, it starts out in SteveV's own words in a free-form description of the Sorting Hat and how it fits into the story. So far, so good. It is only when he dates and quotes the full Sorting Hat songs that we have a problem. But in the context of a reference and research guide, is it reasonable to quote those songs? In response, I ask how many times have we discussed and even quoted the Sorting Hat, and how handy would it have been to have a single dated reference of those songs that we could refer to? Now, I don't know if it fall within fair use, but it is certainly valuable as a reference to the series. As to your suggestion or prediction, I think that is a reasonable resolution to this case. In a sense, if I understand your right, the ruling would be that the Lexicon would not be fair use /in its present form/. Meaning it could be re-written. But I suspect Carol is right, if it is re-written, JKR/WB would simply re-issue their challenge against the new form. In which case it become not a matter of right or wrong, fair or unfair, but a matter of who runs out of money first. Of course, it is VERY unlikely that JKR/WB will ever run out of money. Also note that the lawsuit is NOT RDR/SVA vs JKR/WB, it is RDR vs JKR/WB, again confirming to me that SteveV is just being swept along in the tide. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday1.txt 2 ------------------------------x 2 3 WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, 3 INC. and J.K. ROWLING, 4 4 Plaintiffs, 5 5 v. 07 CV 9667 (RPP) 6 6 RDR BOOKS, 7 7 Defendant. 8 8 ------------------------------x I still say that SteveV realizes he made a mistake, and if he could reverse it, he would. But everything is in the hands of the publisher now. SteveV, I'm sure, even has to choose his words wisely when he speaks in public. He can't openly oppose or try to sabotage his own publisher unless he want to open himself up to a lawsuit. A lawsuit he would have a very difficult time defending himself against when you consider that he is /unemployed/. Lastly, while I have sympathy for SteveV and try my best to keep an open objective mind, I see this as a matter of law, not who I do or don't like. I trust the law to evaluate the case and rule fairly, though I'm equally sure that any ruling will cause more pain that relief. Again, I agree with Carol, I think an out of court settlement is best for all involved, and is best from mending the rift this has created in fandom. I personally STILL like the idea that JKR buys the Web Lexicon, and WB buys the printed book from the publisher for expenses plus a small profit. That way, WB and JKR now have full complete legal control over all that information. Steve and RDR walk away happier and wiser for the experience. That also allows fandom to heal. Since the Lexicon would now be under JKR's control, they could re-establish contacts with the Leaky Cauldron and the Floo Network. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 09:41:19 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:41:19 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: The Trial -- My Prediction: JKR wins/loses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4811A73F.6020102@yahoo.com> bboyminn: > RATS! I had a nice long post written and was ready to [SEND] > when suddenly my browser closed .... I empathize. I was just finishing up a long reply to Carol a couple days ago when *&@(# Windows blue-screened. Shoulda been using Linux. > As many who have been following the discussion know, I am > somewhat sympathetic to SteveV, but at the same time I think > he did screw up and I also think he realizes that. I understand your points here, and assuming your portrayal is accurate, I agree that makes SVA a somewhat sympathetic figure, in particular as I could easily see myself making the same mistake. However, as you said, this is irrelevant to the legalities of the case > It is only when he dates and quotes the full Sorting Hat > songs that we have a problem. But in the context of a > reference and research guide, is it reasonable to quote > those songs? I could easily be wrong on this, but I believe the point of contention is that the songs were quoted in their entirety; if he had quoted only a portion, he would have been OK. I also vaguely recall that songs and poetry, even when appearing inside another work, are treated separately for copyright purposes. Thus the lexicon has in effect, in the case of the Sorting Hat song, copied a protected work in its entirety, a big copyright boo-boo. These are all vague memories from somewhere, and I am likely wrong in both major and minor points. Anyone out there who can correct me? > But I suspect Carol is right, if it is re-written, > JKR/WB would simply re-issue their challenge against > the new form. Two questions (not counter-arguments): First, if the judge specifically rules the lexicon infringing *because* it copies excessively, and a rewrite corrects that problem, it would take away the heart of JKR/WB's case, severaly lessening their chances of winning a second go-round. Of course, if their intent is to simply out-lawyer RDR/SVA, a second go-round would be just the thing. Secondly, since WB is involved for the trademark issues, and those have all been resolved, could it even be involved in a subsequent case? I.e., WB would have to show legal cause why it had the right to bring any new suit against RDR/SVA, and if a new suit were reduced to copyright issues alone, it seems WB would have none. > Again confirming to me that SteveV is just > being swept along in the tide. Well, however sympathetic we may be to his plight, he did in fact jump into the ocean of his own volition. I, for one, have tried to steer clear of the personalities and people involved and discuss only the legal issues. > I personally STILL like the idea that JKR buys the > Web Lexicon, and WB buys the printed book from the publisher > for expenses plus a small profit. But what would WB do with a book? They're not a publishing house. And in any case, as I mentioned above, it seems all their legal issues are resolved, so they would get nothing out of the deal. Of course, "expenses plus a small profit" would probably be significantly less than WB loses to accounting round-offs in any given month, so it's not like they'd lose much sleep over the expense. Alla: > And to me this e-mail is one of those things that shows > ( to me) that innocent he is not. Simply restating Carol's point (which follows on what I've said previously): Steve's original opinion is just as wrong legally as the plaintiffs allege his current one is. Innocent? Maybe not. Clueless? Apparently. Me: > I found some of the plaintiffs' statements in their opening > complaint equally hilarious. But then that's the job of a > lawyer, isn't it? To make as many outrageous statements as > possible in his client's favor, hoping something will stick. Alla: > Um, no. Well, perhaps "outrageous" was injudicious, but that's certainly the word that leapt to mind in reading some of the statements in the plaintiffs' original complaint. (Of course, that's even leaving aside the contempt with which it often treats English grammar and spelling. Was that really written by an educated person?) "Warner Bros. asked for a copy of the 'print version' of the Lexicon Website.... RDR Books summarily dismissed Warner Bros. reasonable request, stating rudely: 'If you do not know how to print that material [from the Lexicon Website] please ask one of your people to show you how.' RDR Books' unreasonable refusal of this simple request heightened Plaintiffs' fears ...." [para. 33] What the heck is a "'print version' of the Website"? Obviously, WB was using RDR's counter C&D to try to obtain a copy of the printed lexicon. But since RDR's C&D referred to the website, the print edition was irrelevant, it was WB's request that was unreasonable, and RDR was right to refuse it. Personally, RDR was probably more polite than I would have been. You want a print version of the website? Just hit the "Print" button in your browser. Liberally styling its own actions with adjectives like "patiently", "reasonably" and "sympathetic" while slinging such muddy epithets as "duplicitous", "rude" and "surreptitious" at the defendants are precisely the sorts of "outrageous statements" I had in mind in my previous post. But, as far as I can tell, this is just normal lawyerly behavior. How fortunate that judges are immune to such things. Alla: > I have absolutely no clue if 91% number is correct. It > could be less, it could be more, but I do believe that > it was a lot. Well, "a lot" is hardly legally actionable :-) "Legally permissible" is the issue. As to the 91% figure, I highly doubt the plaintiffs low-balled their estimate. In all likelihood rather the opposite. And in any case, the number is meaningless. Since fair use law doesn't establish percentages -- since, in fact, the permissible threshhold is determined on a case-by-case basis -- the plaintiffs' chart and figures can only be staged for effect, not as any sort of legal argument. Hypothetically, it is perfectly possible for the judge to find 91% within the permissable threshhold, based on the particulars of the case. Alla: > from the transcripts I really like the man I agree. I do believe the judge will render as fair a verdict as he thinks he can. > So there could be multitude of factors which judge take > into consideration. Picking up on someone else's thought, there are undoubtedly entire law libraries full of arcane bits of legal precedent no one has ever heard of just waiting to jump out and bite amateur prognosticators such as myself in the a posteriori. I fully expect in a few weeks' time to discover I am utterly, stupendously full of horse dung. But I found the prognostication exercise an enjoyable passer of time nonetheless. CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 14:10:27 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:10:27 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] HP Lexicon vs. Encyclopedia of Arda In-Reply-To: <7E48C8E9-E908-4559-9054-C4662B6BDD15@comcast.net> References: <480EEA90.6080703@yahoo.com> <7E48C8E9-E908-4559-9054-C4662B6BDD15@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4811E653.4030101@yahoo.com> Hi, Katherine. Thanks for the reply. Katherine: > The problem with the Tolkien estate is that the books were not > popular until many years after they were published... > In copyright court that set a precedent. If you don't defend your > copyright vigorously, your ownership can become diluted I thought it was trademark, not copyright, that could become diluted. Copyright remains inviolable throughout its lifetime. Am I wrong? I do know in 1965 ACE Books published an unauthorized paperback edition of the Lord of the Rings, but that *was* challenged, and ACE Books ceased publication. Can you provide an example of Tolkien not defending his copyright? Thanks. CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 17:59:34 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:59:34 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > > So I left in your comparison of Basilisks unsnipped to suggest again > that you are comparing WEB Lexicon and FB, which is IMO incorrect, > since book and web version are QUITE different. > I recommend comparing entries in the BOOK version which I linked to > in the beginning of this thread and Nora linked again few posts > upthread. Carol responds: Thank you very much for the link. First, you're right that Steve V., for reasons that he presents elsewhere in the testimony, has, indeed transformed the Lexicon into an alphabetical list. He is mistaken in believing that doing so would make the book easier to use or to produce (if I recall his arguments correctly)--reference books organized around categories and arranged alphabetically within the category or subcategory are produced all the time, for example the Random House Word Menu. It isn't difficult to find the relevant category--all the reader has to do is to consult the table of contents. And if the reader isn't sure which category is appropriate (hm--Would "wand cores" be under Beasts, Wizards, Hogwarts, or Artifacts?), there's always that alphabetical list at the end of the book commonly referred to as an index. As for the links to other articles in the online Lexicon, which obviously can't be duplicated in the print version, a copyeditor could easily change them to cross references. IOW, Steve V. has gone to a lot of needless work to make his book *less* useful and hurt his own case. I can only conclude that he knows as little about book publishing as he does about copyright law. Sigh. However, the points I made about the arrangement and content of his book differing substantially from JKR's contemplated Scottish Book as described in an interview still hold. Second, I can't copy and paste the "Basilisk" entry directly from the court documents, but it's a condensed version of the entry I already quoted. I don't want to try to keep three windows open at the same time and copy it here for fear of losing my post, so I'll type it up (sigh!) and present it in a different post. However, I'll state right here that it is *not* copied directly from either CoS or FB, and it eliminates the long quotation from the imaginary library book. Carol, not sure whether to sympathize with Steve V. or lose patience with him altogether for not informing himself on Fair Use and book publishing From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 19:35:46 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:35:46 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This post is a continuation of my response to Alla's request, below: Alla: > > I recommend comparing entries in the BOOK version which I linked to in the beginning of this thread and Nora linked again few posts upthread. I already compared the online Lexicon's version of the Basilisk entry to FB's (see upthread). This post gives the printed version, with bracketed comments indicating the differences between it and the online version: Here is the Print Lexicon version, with the differences from the online version noted: "Basilisk ["King of Serpents" and MOM classification omitted] "A wizard-bred Dark creature of enormous power, this extremely poisonous giant serpent (up to fifty feet in length) is brilliant green in color with long thin saber-like fangs and bulbous yellow eyes [cross reference omitted and "fifty" spelled out]. A Basilisk can live for at least 900 years given an adequate food supply, and as it can eat most vertebrates (including humans), this is not difficult to achieve. The male can be distinguished from the female by the scarlet plume on its head, but basilisks are usually magically rather than normally bred. [New sentence here:] A Basilisk is created by hatching a chicken egg under a toad. [Old material resumes;] Basilisk-breeding has been outlawed since medieval times and in the present day falls under the Ban on Experimental Breeding, but this law has rarely been broken even by Dark wizards, since only a Parselmouth can control a Basilisk (FB). [The source for the entire paragraph has been added, with the Ban on Experimental Breeding error mentioned in my earlier post retained. No plagiarism or copyright violations here. The capitalization of "Basilisk" is an editorial change presumably based on the publisher's stylistic preferences.] [Quotation from imaginary library book omitted, as is the inference about the Phoenix seeming to be immune from the Basilisk's "deadly gaze."] [New material here] "The Basilisk has extremely poisonous fangs. The only antidote for the poison is phoenix tears (DH6). Its stare can kill. Spiders flee from the basilisk, but the great serpent fears the crowing of a rooster (CS16). [The first and third sentences are "common knowledge" and require no citation. The source is cited for the second and fourth sentences. Most of the paraphrasing is fine; the one exception is "Spiders flee from the Basilisk," which is too close to the original, "Spiders flee before the Basilisk," taken from the imaginary library book in CoS.] [New sentence] Salazar Slytherin placed a Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets under Hogwarts castle [no citation needed for this purely informative sentence, which does not duplicate JKR's words in CoS; Salazar's Basilisk isn't mentioned in FB]. When unleashed by the Heir of Slytherin using Parseltongue in 1992 [date is a new addition], the basilisk searched the castle for its prey ["that lived in the Chamber of Secrets" has been cut], Muggle-born students, which it apparently could identify by smelling their blood ("I smell blood..." the creature cried as it wandered the pipes) [page reference is still missing]. When its eyes were pecked out by Fawkes, it attacked Harry using its keen sense of smell. Harry killed the basilisk by thrusting a sword through the roof of its mouth. Harry's arm was pierced by one of the basilisk's fangs, the poison of which nearly killed him (esp. CS 17). [Source added; with the exception of the small cut and the cited source, this paragraph from "When unleashed" forward is identical to the online version. the citation for "I smell blood" is still missing, and Steve has forgotten to capitalize "basilisk," but these small matters can be caught and corrected or queried by a copyeditor. I know because that's what I do for a living!]" The following paragraph from the original online entry has been cut entirely: "Apart from its specific magical powers and long lifespan, many of the characteristics of the basilisk follow naturally from its being a serpent (see). Like more mundane serpents, the basilisk sheds its skin at intervals, and its varied diet is typical of the larger snakes, which tend to pursue larger and larger prey according to their own size and capabilities. It's quite possible that had Harry both retained his wand and been more experienced in Defence Against the Dark Arts, he might have lost his battle against the basilisk in attempting to use Stunning Spells; although not explicitly stated, the basilisk's skin probably has the same armor characteristics as dragon skin, leaving its eyes and the inside of its mouth as its only vulnerable points." As you can see, the print version is a condensed version of the online version, which eliminates one long quotation, substituting summary and paraphrase, but also eliminates the online version's commentary comparing Basilisks to ordinary serpents (probably a mistake since that paragraph could conceivably be called "transformative." The MoM classification is also omitted. Some of the differences between the two entries are small matters of editorial style, not consistently carried through, such as the capitalization of "Basilisk" and the spelling out of numbers under one hundred. More important, Steve has cited the sources of his material. Granted, the "I smell blood" quotation is still uncited, and "Spiders flee from it" is too close to the original wording to be an acceptable paraphrase, but otherwise, this entry does not "copy and paste" JKR's wording any more than the original does. The elimination of the long quotation, now incorporated into the entry using legitimate paraphrase and summary, makes it less, not more, reliant on her wording. For comparison, here again is the FB entry on Basilisks: "BASILISK (also known as the King of Serpents) [info eliminated from print version] "M.O.M. Classification XXXXX [eliminated from print version] "The first recorded basilisk was bred by Herpo the Foul, a Greek Dark wizard and Parselmouth, who discovered after much experimentation that a chicken egg hatched beneath a toad would produce a gigantic serpent possessed of extraordinarily dangerous powers. [Herpo the Foul is not mentioned in either Lexicon entry; the chicken egg hatched by a toad is "common knowledge" and does not require a citation.] "The Basilisk is a brilliant green serpent that may reach up to twenty feet in length. The male has a scarlet plume upon its head. It has exceptionally venomous fangs but its most dangerous means of attack is the gaze of its large yellow eyes. Anyone looking directly into these will suffer instant death. [This information is used but adequately paraphrased and cited, if the end-of-paragraph citation applies to the entire paragraph.] "If the food source is sufficient (the Basilisk will eat all mammals and birds and most reptiles). The serpent may attain a very great age. Herpo the Foul's Basilisk is believed to have lived for close on nine hundred years. [This information is summarized and the source cited in the end-of-paragraph citation; again, Herpo the Foul is not mentioned.] "The creation of Basilisks has been illegal since medieval times, although the practice is easily concealed by simply removing the chicken egg from beneath the toad when the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures comes to call. However, since Basilisks are uncontrollable except by Parselmouths, they are as dangerous to most Dark wizards as to anybody else, and there have been no recorded sightings of Basilisks for at least four hundred years." [Obviously, the "no recorded sightings" line is not used. The rest is acceptably paraphrased (except for the Ban on Experimental Breeding error, which does not violate copyright law) and adequately cited. Conclusion: It would be advisable to use the phrase "According to Fantastic Beasts" to introduce some of the material, and Steve needs a good copyeditor, but this entry is assuredly *not* copied and pasted from either FB or CoS. Efforts have been made to cite his sources and to eliminate objectionable material, such as the long quotation from the imaginary library book. Steve may be trying *too* hard by cutting the paragraph of material at the end of the original entry. But 91 percent JKR's material? "Codswallop!" as Hagrid would say. Carol, concluding that Steve V. is acting in good faith here but that he has been badly advised regarding the reorganization of the book and possibly with regard to the cuts in the entries P.S. This is my last attempt to make comparative entries because it's extremely time-consuming, but I hope that other posters will compare them for themselves. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 20:17:22 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:17:22 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > Carol, hoping that Nora can identify the specific document in which > > the entries are compared as I've already spent more time than I should > > have comparing the Lexicon with FB > > Well, I linked you to the actual text of the Lexicon as is under > dispute--which Alla had linked to at the beginning of this thread, > shockingly enough, so the complaint that it wasn't available was...hasty. > > Here's another comparison chart: > > http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/36/13.html > Carol responds: As far as I can see, the paraphrases are perfectly legitimate, not coming close enough to JKR's original wording to constitute plagiarism or copyright infringement. The comparison chart omits one important detail, that Steve has cited FB or QTTA as his source. Note, also, the small number of entries in Exhibit M, by no means 91 percent of the book, which relate only to those two books and to a sport or creatures invented by JKR. It should be self-evident that Steve can use no sources other than these two books or the HP series for these entries, and analysis of creatures that don't appear in the HP books themselves is a bit much to expect. For crying out loud, JKR! Have you never heard of the term "paraphrase"? Just ask him to indicate that these creatures, for example, the Fwooper, are your inventions and are mentioned only in FB (which he does cite as his source!). That should solve the problem nicely, without all the ughliness of a lawsuit. He's not infringing on copyright; he's merely taking for granted that his readers know that JKR invented these imaginary creatures. And surely no page number is needed to locate an FB entry of "Fwooper" or "Jarvey." FB is itself an alphabetically arranged reference book. And the "Knee-Reversing Hex" entry, for example, *beautifully* combines quotation (with quotation marks) and paraphrase from QTTA, with the source and chapter number cited. Since QTTA does not have separate American and British editions, it might be advisable to change the citation format to page numbers instead of chapter numbers, but there's no copyright infringement that I can see. Carol, who thinks that if this little comparative chart, which dishonestly leaves out the cited sources, is the evidence intended to show that the Lexicon entries are copied and pasted from JKR's books, their case doesn't have a leg to stand on From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 21:09:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:09:13 -0000 Subject: The Trial -- My Prediction: JKR wins/loses In-Reply-To: <4811A73F.6020102@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee: > I could easily be wrong on this, but I believe the point of contention is that the songs were quoted in their entirety; if he had quoted only a portion, he would have been OK. I also vaguely recall that songs and poetry, even when appearing inside another work, are treated separately for copyright purposes. Thus the lexicon has in effect, in the case of the Sorting Hat song, copied a protected work in its entirety, a big copyright boo-boo. Carol responds: You're correct, which is why the online for the Sorting Hat entry was problematic and needed to be revised (a problem only partially resolved in the revised version). The songs require permission, unlike most of the quoted material in the books. (Some publishers charge a fee for quoting song lyrics and poems. Whether a song that is part of a larger work falls into that category, I don't know.) In any case, the online Sorting Hat entry is by no means typical of the Lexicon entries, either the printed or the online version. The printed version has been revised, incorporating the Sorting Hat's OoP song into the text of the entry. Use of a whole song, or most of a song, still requires permission, but the entry no longer relies on the songs themselves as the primary content for the Lexicon entry. Lee: > First, if the judge specifically rules the lexicon infringing *because* it copies excessively, and a rewrite corrects that problem, it would take away the heart of JKR/WB's case, severaly lessening their chances of winning a second go-round. Carol responds: As I've endeavored to show with numerous examples, the Lexicon does *not* copy extensively. The paraphrases (with a few exceptions like the "spiders flee" paraphrase in the Basilisk entry, which does come to close to the original wording) are for the most part far enough from the original wording, while still retaining the original meaning, to be perfectly legitimate, and in most cases (with exceptions that can *eaeily* be caught and queried by a competent copyeditor), the sources are cited. I do suggest an occasional lead-in along the lines of, "According to Fantastic Beasts" and a switch to page numbers rather than chapter numbers (preferably for both sets of HP books since Bloomsbury page numbers won't be helpful to American readers and vice versa). But these problems are easily remedied, and the few instances of genuine copyright infringement do not warrant treating the whole book as "copied and pasted" from JKR's works. I realize that it's difficult to follow the links and keep several windows open at once, but it can be done, and once you find the relevant pages in the Justia website, you can bookmark them for easy reference. As for me, I've compared the original to the printed version and both to JKR's works (obviously not for every entry but enough to assure myself that the copyright infringement is not extensive and the 91 percent, copy-and-paste claim is bolderdash). I've looked at fair use and copyright law and cited them here. I've examined the chart of comparison between FB, QTTA, and "the infringing work," noting that the quotations from the printed Lexicon fail to include his citations. And it looks to me as if JKR has some reasonable objections that should be acted on, but, by and large, she doesn't have a case. >From a purely emotional standpoint, which I realize has no bearing on the case itself, I hope that the once-penniless JKR, who should remember what it was like to be a single mother living on welfare, can find it in her heart to forgive and pity the unemployed librarian who has given so much time to her works. Uninformed and confused and mistaken he may be, but his career prospects and his future as a writer have been blighted by this affair, while she stands to make yet more money (and no one is going to buy Steve's book, especially in its current format, as a substitute for the "Scottish Book" or for FB or QTTA. (Steve V. even recommended buying those books for further information in the online version of the Lexicon but has eliminated that recommendation from the printed version, presumably because there's no link.) Roger Rapaport of RDR, or whoever talked Steve into signing that contract, might benefit from a year of standing in unemployment lines, or, at least, I feel that he deserves it. I only hope that *reputable* writers and publishers won't suffer as a consequence of a decision that favors JKR. (I am stating *feelings,* not informed opinions, in this paragraph, and I'm quite aware that other people feel differently. It has no bearing on what I think the judge should do, which is based on my examination of the evidence. But I'm certain that, like any good editor or English teacher, he knows the difference between paraphrase and incorporated quotations on the one hand and copy-and-paste plagiarism on the other.) Carol, glad that Steve V. has updated the print version to include material from DH but wishing he'd left the original format alone From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 21:31:20 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:31:20 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Steve" wrote: > > ... > > Along comes a publisher that give SteveV their absolute and > determined assurance that his lexicon fall well within 'Fair > Use'. Once they convinced him of this, and once a contract > was signed, the whole matter was out of SteveV's hands. **Now > he is bound by contract to defend his publisher.*** He has > consigned, in a manner of speaking, the Lexicon over to them. > > If they choose to fight JKR request to cease and desist, then > SteveV has no choice but to accept the publisher's decision. > And to do his part NOT to breech the contract he signed. > > ... bboyminn: I was just reading the Transcript of Day 1 of the trial in which Mr. Rapoport of RDR Publishing is testifying. In it was a reference to an email send from RDR to Steve Vander Ark which goes like this, which for me confirms my suspicions. - - - - - - - - - - - - Q. Now, first of all, you said in this e-mail to Mr. Vander Ark: Anything you say in public can and will be used against you. Did you say that to him? A. Yes. - - - - - - - - - - - - As I suspected SteveV was warned that if he spoke out against the publisher, or in any way tried to sabotage the marketing of the book, the publisher would use those statements against SteveV in a civil suit. Now, I'm reading a lot into that, but I don't see any other way of interpreting it. So, as I've said, SteveV was bound by contract to side with his publisher once the contract was signed. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From gwharrison53 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 23:17:25 2008 From: gwharrison53 at yahoo.com (gwharrison53 at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: TUE = Earth Day & DVD #4 HP (in background) Message-ID: <200804252317.m3PNHQGh011971@upsa-web116.ofoto.com> You're invited to view my online photos at the Gallery. Enjoy! You're invited to view these photos online at KODAK Gallery! Just click on View Photos to get started. http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.1xolhzcj&x=0&h=1&y=-6cexsw&localeid=en_US If you'd like to save this album, just sign in, or if you're new to the Gallery, create a free account. Once you've signed in, you'll be able to view this album whenever you want and order Kodak prints of your favorite photos. Enjoy! Instructions: Click view photos to begin. If you're an existing member you'll be asked to sign in. If not, you can join the Gallery for free. http://www.kodakgallery.com/Register.jsp Questions? Visit http://help.kodakgallery.com. ------------------------------------------------------------ The KODAK Gallery Customer Service Team Phone: 800-360-9098 / 512-651-9770 Outside of the US and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ If you cannot see the links above, copy and paste the following URL directly into your browser: http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.1xolhzcj&x=0&h=1&y=-6cexsw&localeid=en_US [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 00:18:31 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:18:31 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > > As far as I can see, the paraphrases are perfectly legitimate, not > coming close enough to JKR's original wording to constitute > plagiarism or copyright infringement. See, this is where I think we're hitting loggerheads. I believe, per Castle Rock and other decisions, that copyright does not apply only to the exact specific wording--it's the right to the work as a body, not only to the exact phrasing. You can paraphrase and still commit copyright violation. I'll be shocked and eat my crow if the ruling doesn't note that. Yes. Paraphrase can violate copyright. Copyright violation does not care whether you quote directly or paraphrase. It's the taking and the using that matters. > For crying out loud, JKR! Have you never heard of the term > "paraphrase"? Just ask him to indicate that these creatures, for > example, the Fwooper, are your inventions and are mentioned only in > FB (which he does cite as his source!). That should solve the > problem nicely, without all the ughliness of a lawsuit. And that's the other problem. Proper citation is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for copyright violation--you can cite everything properly and still violate copyright and the four factor Fair Use test, depending on how much you take for what you're doing with it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 04:00:03 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:00:03 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > As far as I can see, the paraphrases are perfectly legitimate, not coming close enough to JKR's original wording to constitute plagiarism or copyright infringement. Nora: > See, this is where I think we're hitting loggerheads. I believe, per Castle Rock and other decisions, that copyright does not apply only to the exact specific wording--it's the right to the work as a body, not only to the exact phrasing. You can paraphrase and still commit copyright violation. > > Yes. Paraphrase can violate copyright. Copyright violation does not care whether you quote directly or paraphrase. It's the taking and the using that matters. Carol responds: No. It's the use of the author's *words* that matters. And both the quality and the quantity of the quoted or *closely* paraphrased passages matters. If the source is cited and the author's words are in quotation marks, you are not taking her property and claiming it as your own (plagiarism, which is only a legal violation if it violates copyright law)). And copyright law, specifically the Fair Use Doctrine, allows you to quote and paraphrase as much of the original work as is necessary for the type of work you are doing, as I hope the numerous posts quoting the Fair Use Doctrine have establihed. Let me quote once again from "The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing," second edition (MLA being the Modern Language Association): "Like verbatim copying, close paraphrasing of protected expression can constitute copyright infringement if the borrowing does not meet the criteria for fair use, The ideas contained in a work, though, in contrast to the original expression, may be freely used without risk of copyright infringement" (21.1.13, p. 44). Only "verbatim copying" and "*close* paraphrasing" that picks up an author's *words* without putting them in quotation marks or block quote format can violate copyright. A careful paraphrase that uses the author's *ideas* cannot because *ideas cannot be copyrighted*. Of course, it's an *ethical* violation (plagiarism) to paraphrase without crediting your source, but it's not copyright violation. And Steve V's paraphrases eliminate all vestiges of JKR's distinctive style, taking them as far from the "original expression" as possible. If that's not sufficient to convince you that ideas can't be copyrighted and that the work as a whole is only protected from being *copied,* not from being paraphrased or summarized, here's a quotation directly from the U.S. government's copyright site: "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work." (FL-102, Revised July 2006) http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html "The *particular way* an author has *expressed [her]self" is protected--the ideas and the content and any information that can be gleaned from the book and re-expressed through paraphrase and summary is not. *Paraphrasing* the copyrighted material is not *copying* it. Paraphrasing, as, of course, you already know, is using different words to convey the same idea without duplicating the original phrasing except when doing so is unavoidable, as in "the Sword of Gryffindor" or "the Half-blood Prince." So, IMO, JKR's lawyers' examples of legitimately paraphrased sentences, with the sources cited (as the lawyer's charts do not convey) do not qualify as fair use infringement, even if 91 percent of the book consisted of such paraphrases, all of which are placed in a context that differentiates them from JKR's published works and her unwritten Scottish Book. (Now if Steve V. had somehow had access to her completed but unpublished manuscript for that book and had used it without authorization, he would be in serious trouble.) The fact that the quotations are in quotation marks, the paraphrases do not pick up the original wording, and the sources are cited *is* important given that JKR was charging Steve V. with plagiarism. Even though plagiarism is only a legal offense when it involves copyright infringement (which, again, involves words, not ideas), it seems clear that JKR wants it made clear that the ideas, the "fictional facts" and imaginary creatures, are her invention, even though ideas can't be copyrighted, and citing the source accomplishes that purpose. Nora: > And that's the other problem. Proper citation is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for copyright violation--you can cite everything properly and still violate copyright and the four factor Fair Use test, depending on how much you take for what you're doing with it. > Carol: That depends. If the entire work, or a substantial portion of it, really were "copied and pasted" from JKR's books, citing the sources would make no difference. But paraphrasing isn't copying, and citing the sources for a paraphrase is an acknowledgment of the source of the ideas, a courtesy to the author and an aid to readers. (It also, of course, prevents the ideas from being plagiarized, which is irrelevant to copyright law but not to JKR as the creator of the HP series.) As for the Four Factor test, of course I agree that that's the crucial factor. I'm merely trying to establish that paraphrasing, unless it comes so close to the author's actual words as to be indistinguishable from the author's "original expression" (MLA), "the particular way an author has expressed [her]self" (FL-102), does not violate copyright law. And far from being a "get out of jail free card," citing your sources aids the reader and is a courtesy to the author. It's a sign of professionalism and scholarship and respect for the author's words and ideas. It will not qualify overabundant *copying* as fair use, nor will the failure to cite a quotation or paraphrase necessarily count as a violation of copyright law (though it will count as plagiarism and could have serious consequences for a student or scholar). I'm just saying that JKR's lawyers are failing to acknowledge that Steve V. cited his sources, crediting JKR's ideas (and her words, in the case of quoted phrases) to their source. In so doing, he acted in good faith and they did not. Carol, who really wants to drop out of this discussion but felt compelled to make and support this particular point From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 04:51:28 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:51:28 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: (reposted to add relevant information in place of posting again) --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed > himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual > information conveyed in the work." I think the problem here is that we're reading 'ideas' in a significantly different way--and this is where Castle Rock is so very, very relevant, because it says that the details of a piece of fictional expression are protected. The Seinfeld Trivia book broke the fictional facts of that world up--not quoting them directly, but rendering them into a question and answer format--and was still ruled to be violating. It's much easier and clearer to talk about 'ideas' in the way that you'd like to when we're discussing literary analysis and criticism, which often develop methods which scholars can then derive for their work on material they were not originally developed for. When you come to *fiction*, copyright is much stricter than non-fiction. The 'ideas' of Harry Potter would be the more nebulous things that we could talk about thematically, such as the overall tropes of the plot, themes, etc. The unique creations of JKR's world (such as the unique aspects of creations from Fantastic Beasts, or the characters discussed in Quidditch Throughout The Ages) are the particular way that she has expressed herself, and as such are well defended. This is why the phrasing in the trial was often like: 15 Q. My question to you is whether, isn't it true that over 90 16 percent of the Lexicon manuscript quotes or paraphrases 17 Ms. Rowling's work? 18 MR. HAMMER: He's already said that he doesn't know. 19 She's testifying now in the form of this question. 20 THE COURT: Objection sustained. If there were a valid legal objection to 'quotes or paraphrases', which are treated as co-equal there, Hammer would have raised that as his objection against Cendali. I found another interesting argument here: http://wise-old-sage.blog-city.com/gaiman_joint_authorship_and_transformative_wo\ rks.htm which notes on the whole derivative/transformational argument, which is even more fundamental than the argument over paraphrase, etc. Also, idly googling around (how did we ever live without Google?) I found another interesting copyright case: http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_williamsbroadus.html where you again get "direct quotation or close paraphrase" treated as equivalent issues. Since I'm feeling generous with my linkage, here's the opinion on Castle Rock: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/150_F3d_132.htm I'm intrigued by this "fragmented similarity analysis" test and will have to read more about it--that seems to be where the comparison chart of FB and various entries: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv096\ 67/315790/36/13.html would nail the defense. Actually, let me add on here and quote the extremely, extremely relevant bit from Castle Rock: "As to Ringgold's qualitative component, each SAT trivia question is based directly upon original, protectable expression in Seinfeld. As noted by the district court, The SAT did not copy from Seinfeld unprotected [p*139] facts, but, rather, creative expression. Cf. Feist, 499 U.S. at 364 (finding no infringement where defendant produced a multi-county phone directory, in part, by obtaining names and phone numbers from plaintiffs' single-county directory). Unlike the facts in a phone book, which "do not owe their origin to an act of authorship," id. at 347, each "fact" tested by The SAT is in reality fictitious expression created by Seinfeld's authors. The SAT does not quiz such true facts as the identity of the actors in Seinfeld, the number of days it takes to shoot an episode, the biographies of the actors, the location of the Seinfeld set, etc. Rather, The SAT tests whether the reader knows that the character Jerry places a Pez dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital, that Kramer enjoys going to the airport because he's hypnotized by the baggage carousels, and that Jerry, opining on how to identify a virgin, said "It's not like spotting a toupee." Because these characters and events spring from the imagination of Seinfeld's authors, The SAT plainly copies copyrightable, creative expression." [end quote--this is linked to above] To me at least, you could replace that last sentence with "Because these characters and events spring from the imagination of J. K. Rowling, the Lexicon plainly copies copyrightable, creative expression." And note how it's phrased--it's not dependent on the exact wording from Seinfeld, but rather on the description of the events...paraphrase? It's late, but I hope people will read through these documents. They're interesting. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 05:10:39 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:10:39 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > nrecnka: > It's late, but I hope people will read through these documents. > They're interesting. Goddlefrood: Time is relative and it's always time for a drink somewhere. Thus I can justify raising a whisky and soda at 10 in the morning, on the increasingly rare occasions I do. Thanks for the efforts. It further supports my stated opinion that if there is a judgment then JKR will prevail. Goddlefrood, just after afternoon tea. (Inspired by you-know-who) From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 05:24:17 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:24:17 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > Goddlefrood: > > Time is relative and it's always time for a drink somewhere. Thus I > can justify raising a whisky and soda at 10 in the morning, on the > increasingly rare occasions I do. > > Thanks for the efforts. It further supports my stated opinion that > if there is a judgment then JKR will prevail. Aww, thanks. I live to cite. Just to add to the discussion about 'ideas', let me cite the Copyright Office website on what you cannot copyright: "Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration" http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp That seems to me to be saying that, for instance, you can't copyright your thesis about the influence of technology on city planning in the 1970s, or the influence of Greek tragedy on 19th century opera composers (although anyone who uses your ideas should cite you properly). It doesn't seem to properly label many aspects of works of fiction or other artistic endeavors, which is what we're debating there. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 07:34:35 2008 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:34:35 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Goddlefrood: > > Time is relative and it's always time for a drink somewhere. Thus I > can justify raising a whisky and soda at 10 in the morning, on the > increasingly rare occasions I do. > > Thanks for the efforts. It further supports my stated opinion that > if there is a judgment then JKR will prevail. > > Goddlefrood, just after afternoon tea. (Inspired by you-know-who) > Doddie here: Sorry; but this battle is fought here on U.S. territory...this one said court battle falls w/in U.S. law..I think JKR's fate may well have been sealed after she awarded said site...I think she passed her nominations of site awards past her legal advice before awarding...and one of the reasons why the lexi probably won awards was due to their no cut and paste/link/open in new window policy...I got it..if no one else did..no one could ever site them w/o permission...the Lexi is more protected than JKR's works...(I got why they did what they did..they wanted to print their work in the end...and why shouldn't they? What makes their actions different from so many others---they waited until ALL JKR's works were published.. I think JKR is angry that the Lexicon's no cut/paste/link/openinnewwindow policy wasn't to protect her....but to protect the site..and SVA' publishing intentions.. Given the other books published over the years...I do not think JKR's case will prevail..I think most of us would purchase JKR above SVA...and after said case...would purchase both...for simple posterity at this point... I wonder if WB doesn't have a bigger role in this..I do think WB "stole/borrowed" SVA's timeline...we also know an amusement park is being built under wb guise... I like to think that JKR decided to fight/particiapate in this court battle to ensure DH was a two movie deal vs. one movie... Alas...if this is true...we may have had the GOF movie most fans wanted...(see!?!?! if only she had fought all the other books from the beginning?!?!?! *heavy sigh* DD From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 09:23:54 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:23:54 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Doddie here: > Sorry; but this battle is fought here on U.S. territory...this > one said court battle falls w/in U.S. law Goddlefrood: Thought I hadn't noticed did you? Your point was ... One thing, the law does not exist in a vacuum. In the USA, despite the lay person possibly thinking otherwise, the Court's take notice of what happens elsewhere. US Statutes are based on other countries' statutes as well as being devised and / or adjusted for state and federal considerations. Where there might be a gap in precedent - the US has the same Common Law system that originated in England - the US Courts take note of decided case law from other common law jurisdcitions. The US is also a signatory to the Berne Convention and part of said Convention indicates that each signatory should put in place Copyright legislation. The US follows the Convention. Where, and if, which is unlikely, the Copyright Act of 1976 conflicts with the Berne Convention, then it would be the Convention that prevailed. Sorry if you feel the US law is paramount, but I'm afraid in this instance it isn't. It is bound to higher things and each country that follows the international Convention on copyright has more or less the same provisions in their own Copyright laws as would the US. > Given the other books published over the years...I do not think > JKR's case will prevail.. Goddlefrood: Care to expand on that? Precedent and legal references, s'il vous plait. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 09:41:05 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:41:05 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: That case and that book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4812F8B1.6010004@yahoo.com> As you've already linked to the Castle Rock case, I won't bother. > this is where Castle Rock is so very, > very relevant, because it says that the details of a piece of > fictional expression are protected. The Seinfeld Trivia book broke > the fictional facts of that world up--not quoting them directly, but > rendering them into a question and answer format--and was still ruled > to be violating. (First, a note. I don't find the words "details of a piece of fictional expression" in the text of the decision. As I read the Castle Rock decision, the court seems to have given far more weight to the transformational argument than it did to its point about protection of fictional facts. Its "fictional facts" determination is, first, made in response to a defense claim and, second, underpins only the court's reasoning viz. the qualitative analysis. From the text of the decision: "We have stated that 'substantial similarity' requires that the copying [be] quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support the legal conclusion that infringement (actionable copying) has occurred. The qualitative component concerns the copying of expression, rather than ideas[, facts, works in the public domain, or any other non-protectable elements] . . . . The quantitative component generally concerns the amount of the copyrighted work that is copied...." The court then finds the trivia book failing both a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Beyond the qualitative analysis, however, the fictional facts determination does not appear to have played much of a role in the court's reasoning. In my reading it seems so very clear that it was the transformative issue which played the major role. I'll quote here from the Wikipedia discussion, because it's more succinct (not to mention readable :-) )and directly to my point, but I believe nonetheless accurately describes the court's reasoning. On the "fictional facts" issue: "When analyzing the quality of the copied material, the court rejected the defendant's position that Seinfeld trivia constituted facts and was therefore not covered by copyright protection. It reasoned that the 'facts' portrayed in Seinfeld originated in the fictitious expression by the writers of the show." The court rejects the transformative argument in the Seinfeld case on the grounds that the *purposes* were pretty much the same: "The court rejected defendant's arguments holding that any transformative purpose posed by the book was slight or non-existent. It concluded that the purpose of the book was to entertain the Seinfeld audience with a book about Seinfeld, much the same purpose as the television show." It was this lack of sufficient transformative qualities, not the point about the protectable status of "fictional facts", that underlay the court's reasoning on the other tests: "The court looked to the second statutory factor.... [T]he court noted that transformative use can lessen the importance of the nature of the copyrighted work, but since The SAT held slight or non-existent transformative purpose, the fictional nature of Seinfeld disfavored a finding a fair use.... "The third factor ... was whether ... copying went beyond what was necessary. Here again, the transformative use affected the court's analysis.... [B]ecause the court found little transformative use for the purposes of critique, this weighed against defendants." On the fourth test: "The court held that the differences in form between The SAT and Seinfeld and the lack of transformative purpose made the book a derivative work in a derivative market." On each of the second, third and fourth tests the court ruled against the defendants based on its finding of a of transformative purpose. The notation viz. the copyrightable status of "fictional facts" seems to be largely peripheral, and does not appear to have played a major role in the court's reasoning. Finally, a question: I would be very curious to know whether the "fictional facts" determination has been specifically cited as precedent in any other court decisions. My own feeling (though IANAL, so what do I know) is that its peripheral role in the court's reasoning makes it a poor candidate for a precedent. If it *has* been cited elsewhere, that'd be very interesting. CJ From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 13:36:39 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:36:39 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <4812F8B1.6010004@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > (First, a note. I don't find the words "details of a piece of > fictional expression" in the text of the decision. I'm allowed to paraphrase, nu? :) In the text of the decision you get the citation of Feist (the telephone book case), and the distinction: 'See Feist, 499 U.S. at 347 (discussing distinction between discovered facts, which do not "owe their origin to an act of authorship" and therefore are not protected by copyright, and created facts, which constitute original, protected expression).' "Created facts" are the things which, here, the Seinfeld writers invented. > Beyond the qualitative analysis, however, the fictional facts > determination does not appear to have played much of a role in the > court's reasoning. In my reading it seems so very clear that it was > the transformative issue which played the major role. The major role, yes. But only after the qualitative analysis has been used to note that the material IS infringing. Note that this is what Carol and I have been arguing about--whether the paraphrase and reorganization of JKR's ideas by the Lexicon renders them not in violation of not. I'm arguing that given the Castle Rock precedent, JKR's claim that much of the Lexicon is infringing material is supported. This argument is the foundation for the rest of the argument (over transformation vs. derivation), which actually makes it even more important, I think. So once we use this to note how much of the Lexicon *is* infringing material, we can finally play the major game--which is indeed whether it's derivative or transformational. In many ways, that's a more complex question, and that's where the defense is trying to make their case. They did not, in the trial, really challenge the accusation that they've massively infringed--they're defending based on the purpose of the infringement. I think it's a weak case for a number of reasons, but we'll see. > Finally, a question: I would be very curious to know whether the > "fictional facts" determination has been specifically cited as > precedent in any other court decisions. My own feeling (though > IANAL, so what do I know) is that its peripheral role in the court's > reasoning makes it a poor candidate for a precedent. If it *has* > been cited elsewhere, that'd be very interesting. This is real easy to do in a casual way (for those of us who don't have easy access to Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis--I'm not going over to the library to plunk it in): put '150 F.3d 132' into Google and see what you get. This case has been cited repeatedly as precedent. From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Sat Apr 26 13:53:49 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:53:49 -0000 Subject: Ways to Maintain A Healthy Level Of Insanity Message-ID: Thought you all might appreciate this and it might apply to some of you. It certainaly does to me Jayne A lovely sunny day for a change in England 1. At Lunch Time, Sit In Your Parked Car With Sunglasses on and point a Hair Dryer At Passing Cars. See If They Slow Down. 2. Page Yourself Over The Intercom. Don't Disguise Your Voice. 3. Every Time Someone Asks You To Do Something, Ask If They Want Fries with that. 4. Put Your Garbage Can On Your Desk And Label It 'In.' 5. Put Decaf In The Coffee Maker For 3 Weeks Once Everyone has Gotten Over Their Caffeine Addictions, Switch to Espresso. 6. In The Memo Field Of All Your Checks, Write ' For Smuggling Diamonds' 7. Finish All Your sentences with 'In Accordance With The Prophecy.' 8. Don't use any punctuation 9. As Often As Possible, Skip Rather Than Walk. 10. Order a Diet Water whenever you go out to eat, with a serious face. 11. Specify That Your Drive-through Order Is 'To Go.' 12. Sing Along At The Opera. 13. Go To A Poetry Recital And Ask Why The Poems Don't Rhyme? 14. Put Mosquito Netting Around Your Work Area And Play tropical Sounds All Day. 15. Five Days In Advance, Tell Your Friends You Can't Attend Their Party Because You're Not In The Mood. 16. Have Your Co-workers Address You By Your Wrestling Name, Rock Bottom. 17. When The Money Comes Out The ATM, Scream 'I Won!, I Won!' 18. When Leaving The Zoo, Start Running Towards The Parking lot, Yelling 'Run For Your Lives, They're Loose!!' 19. Tell Your Children Over Dinner. 'Due To The Economy, We Are Going To Have To Let One Of You Go.' 20. And The Final Way To Keep A Healthy Level Of Insanity....... Send This E-mail To Someone To Make Them Smile. Its Called ....... therapy From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Apr 26 14:08:58 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:08:58 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <4812F8B1.6010004@yahoo.com> Message-ID: CJ: > The court rejects the transformative argument in the Seinfeld case on > the grounds that the *purposes* were pretty much the same: > > "The court rejected defendant's arguments holding that any > transformative purpose posed by the book was slight or non- existent. It > concluded that the purpose of the book was to entertain the Seinfeld > audience with a book about Seinfeld, much the same purpose as the > television show." > > It was this lack of sufficient transformative qualities, not the point > about the protectable status of "fictional facts", that underlay the > court's reasoning on the other tests: Magpie: I constantly feel totally unable to feel like I really get or can argue any of the legal distinctions here. (Maybe I should have gone to law school like I thought about for ten minutes there in college...) But can someone tell me if I'm right in thinking that basically this is exactly what JKR believes can be said about the Lexicon's book? That essentially it is like reading the SAT in that the point of the SAT was that the entertainment value lay in knowing the facts, just like in the Lexicon? Like, that an entry about a fantastic creature is entertainment the same way her FB book is--the fun lying in her creation, the fictional facts? So even without her better writing style it's the facts themselves that are entertaining (as with the SAT)? -m From bekkio at gmail.com Sat Apr 26 16:52:45 2008 From: bekkio at gmail.com (Bekki Olivieri) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:52:45 -0700 Subject: Portus Website Currently Down Message-ID: <561bdbfa0804260952x232a5795qd11039705e7ae330@mail.gmail.com> Unfortunately the Portus 2008 website is currently down. We are aware of the problem and are busily working to solve it. In the meantime, you can still register for Portus through this link: http://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Info/Summary.aspx?e=998e88c1-ac3c-478f-b9cf-cac38f0d61ef If you have questions about Portus, you may direct them to info AT portus2008 DOT org. Regards, Bekki Olivieri Minister of Magic, Portus 2008 From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 17:28:51 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:28:51 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: That case and that book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48136653.4010908@yahoo.com> The last point first, since it is what I've spent the most time on: Me: > Finally, a question: I would be very curious to know > whether the "fictional facts" determination has been > specifically cited as precedent in any other court > decisions. nrenka: > '150 F.3d 132' into Google and see what > you get. This case has been cited repeatedly as > precedent. Yes, it has. But my question was whether the "fictional facts" distinction *specifically* has been referenced as precedent? I've spent hours online wading through references to Castle Rock, and while it is true that 150 F.3d 132 has been widely cited generally, I have been unable to find another case that so much as takes note of, let alone relies specifically on, Castle Rock's "fictional facts" determination. I did, however, stumble across William Patry's blog entry of Nov. 1, 2007. Patry's blog describes him as "Senior Copyright Counsel, Google, Inc., Formerly copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committe on the Judiciary, [etc.]" (williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/11/harry-potter-lexicon-suit.html) In the comments section below the article, an anonymous poster says, "Copyright law distinguishes between real-world 'facts' and the imagined 'facts' an author creates in making up a story". Patry's response largely echoes my own feelings that though Castle Rock made the distinction, it constituted neither a substantive nor a central (is that redundant?) argument in the court's decision. "[T]he Castle Rock court noted the distinction you make but declined to wade into it. For myself, I find the distinction not determinative in the context of the [RDR/SVA] Lexicon" (unfortunately, Patry doesn't explain *why* :-( ). Patry further notes that Castle Rock has been recently criticized, and refers to 292 F. 3d 512, 523 (Ty, Inc. v. Publications International Ltd.). Me: > (First, a note. I don't find the words "details of a piece of > fictional expression" in the text of the decision. nrenka: > I'm allowed to paraphrase, nu? :) Of course! But then I'm also free to wonder (even perhaps aloud) whether your paraprhase accurately reflects the original intent :-) Me: > In my reading it seems so very clear that it was > the transformative issue which played the major role. nrenka: > The major role, yes. But only after the qualitative analysis > has been used to note that the material IS infringing. But in Castle Rock the trivia book failed BOTH the qualitative AND quantitative tests. So even without the fictional facts distinction it is likely the Second District would have found for infringement on quantitative grounds. In short, the distinction does not appear to have been critical even within Castle Rock. > I'm arguing that given the Castle Rock precedent, > JKR's claim that much of the Lexicon is infringing material is > supported. I'm questioning whether the "fictional facts" distinction *is* a precedent. Just because a court of law renders a decision, determination or distinction does not ipso facto make that determination a legal precedent, let alone a binding precedent. Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of legal precedent at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent > This argument is the foundation for the rest of the > argument (over transformation vs. derivation), which > actually makes it even more important, I think. I don't see this. The "fictional facts" distinction informed only the 2nd Circuit's application of the qualitative test. Beyond that, 150 F.3d 132 makes no further reference to or use of the distinction. Castle Rock's makes clear that its determination on the transformative issue was based on the similarity of purpose of the trivia book, and that has nothing to do with the "fictional facts" distinction. > They did not, in the trial, really challenge the accusation > that they've massively infringed At this point I think we must be reading different trial transcripts. First, of course, the defense certainly DOES deny infringing -- that's what the whole case is about, after all. I suspect what you meant to say was "massively copied". Secondly, defense even denies "massively copying"; "paraphrase", "summary", etc. But I don't see anywhere in the transcripts where they acknowledge "massively copying" JKR's work. Me (quoting Wikipedia): > "The court rejected defendant's arguments holding that any > transformative purpose posed by the book was slight or non- > existent. It concluded that the purpose of the book was to > entertain ... much the same purpose as the television show." Magpie: > But can someone tell me if I'm right in thinking that > basically this is exactly what JKR believes can be said > about the Lexicon's book? That essentially it is like > reading the SAT in that the point of the SAT was that the > entertainment value lay in knowing the facts, just like in the > Lexicon? Sorry, I'm not going to answer your question precisely, as I'm still sloughing my way through the trial transcripts, but of course plaintiffs believe and claim a lot of things. Defendants believe and claim a lot of (unsurprisingly) contradictory things. But the only real point is what the *judge* believes. I think in the case of the Lexicon that argument is harder to make. As Carol has admirably demonstrated, the Lexicon DOES add value, in the very least the value of culling, distilling and systematizing facts scatterized throughout the series into a single concise entry. Even absent any scholarly analysis or commentary, *is* a value. A consulter of the lexicon would be spared the hours or days of work necessary to repeat that task, and would likely discover stuff he would otherwise have missed (for example, material culled from JKR interviews). Now, *you, I or nrenka* may not feel this is a value, and the plaintiffs are certainly trying to poo-poo the argument, but it's difficult for me to see how the court could legally distinguish this kind of value from others which do determine fair use. > Like, that an entry about a fantastic creature is > entertainment the same way her FB book is This one, I think, is easy. I just can't imagine a lot of folk running out to consult the Lexicon for entertainment purposes. And that's a key distinction: it's not that some might not find the Lexicon entertaining, but to say that some folk use it for entertainment is not at all the same as arguing that the intended *purpose* of the Lexicon is entertainment. CJ From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 18:00:03 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:00:03 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <48136653.4010908@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > But in Castle Rock the trivia book failed BOTH the qualitative AND > quantitative tests. So even without the fictional facts distinction > it is likely the Second District would have found for infringement > on quantitative grounds. In short, the distinction does not appear > to have been critical even within Castle Rock. Actually, I think it is. You can't establish a quantitative analysis without first deciding what constitutes the infringement--and the court ruled that the events of the episodes were protected material, which then meant there was a question of how much of them you could use, etc. > I think in the case of the Lexicon that argument is harder to make. > As Carol has admirably demonstrated, the Lexicon DOES add value, in > the very least the value of culling, distilling and systematizing > facts scatterized throughout the series into a single concise entry. > Even absent any scholarly analysis or commentary, *is* a value. A > consulter of the lexicon would be spared the hours or days of work > necessary to repeat that task, and would likely discover stuff he > would otherwise have missed (for example, material culled from JKR > interviews). However, remember that 'sweat of the brow'/work amount does not, per Feist, make something transformative. If I don't have any rights to the material itself (which when it comes to fiction, is a broader definition of material than with other items), it doesn't matter how much work or organization I do, unless it renders a product which is truly distinct from the original, like the discussion of the Andy Warhol Marilyn Monroe pictures. Your argument here actually points to this making it a DERIVATIVE work, which is something explicitly under the control of the copyright holder. As for purpose, I read FB for entertainment, but part of that 'entertainment' value is that I learn some details of JKR's world, and I see what she has added to mythological tropes to make it unique to her world. The Lexicon also provides this same purpose--I can read it to find out about the unique personages and aspects of JKR's fictional world--and I can get extremely close to the information provided by the books, precisely because the Lexicon has not added interpretation or commentary in most cases. Purpose doesn't have to line up exactly, as the SAT was a somewhat different kind of entertainment than the experience of watching an episode of Seinfeld. Reading through the Lexicon text online as I have, it's pretty similar to reading FB, or a compression of the books. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 18:46:18 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:46:18 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <48136653.4010908@yahoo.com> Message-ID: nrenka: > '150 F.3d 132' into Google and see what > you get. This case has been cited repeatedly as > precedent. Lee: Yes, it has. But my question was whether the "fictional facts" distinction *specifically* has been referenced as precedent? I've spent hours online wading through references to Castle Rock, and while it is true that 150 F.3d 132 has been widely cited generally, I have been unable to find another case that so much as takes note of, let alone relies specifically on, Castle Rock's "fictional facts" determination. Alla: Well, try this case for example, where basically plaintiffs allege breach of copyright by the defendants who produced movie supposedly based on their screenplay. Price v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 241389 (S.D.N.Y.) Court here denied defendant's motion for summary judgment saying that question of substantial similarity between two works must be decided by the trier of fact, but what I find significant is that judge does NOT does NOT examine dialog only, he examines everything ? feel, theme characters, plot, sequence and setting. "C. Actionable Infringement After examining each work's "total concept and feel, theme, characters, plot, sequence, pace, and setting," [FN79] I cannot find as a matter of law that each and every similar element between the two works is non-protectable. A jury could reasonably conclude that " 'the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard [the works'] aesthetic appeal as the same." ' [FN80] FN79. Williams, 84 F.3d at 588. FN80. Boisson, 273 F.3d at 272 (quoting Folio Impressions, 937 F.2d at 765). "The jury will have to decide whether the similarities between the two works at issue here are substantial, and therefore actionable. This will require differentiation between similarities that constitute original artistic expressions and those that flow from non- protectable ideas, from scenes a faire, or from conventions of underdog sports stories and Hollywood films, or whether the similarities can be found in the prior art, such as Happy Gilmore or Men with Brooms. These questions are quintessentially fact-based disputes and cannot be decided as a matter of law." Alla: While I did not see the expression "fiction facts" used verbatum in the decision, I would argue that determination made partially based on this dicta language as well. And I did keysited Castle rock on Westlaw, found about 750 cases where it was cited and from ten or twelve cases that I skimmed I realised something that I was apparently too slow to realize earlier. Please forgive me, I guess it is good that I am not a copyright lawyer. Since fair use is indeed affirmative defense, plaintiffs do have to prove prima facie case of copyright infringement BEFORE defendants should even bother to allege the defense. Now, of course in the case like this it is assumed that plaintiffs are able to make out their prima facie burden and defendants alleged it in their answer to preserve the defense at trial, but theoretically judge may not even have to go into fair use and its four factors at all, should he find that plaintiffs did not prove their prima facie case of infringement. Now, I think they proved it in spades, but heeee, am not a copyright lawyer. Also try this case for proposition of accepting the test that Castle Court used, although that case is distinguishable on the facts IMO, since plaintiff's copyright was being challenged and even that did not stop the court from denying defendant's summary judgment motion: 2001 WL 984714 "FN6. According to the Second Circuit, the question of whether the copied portion of the original work in a case of fragmented literal similarity is substantial is distinct from the quantitative question asked as part of the qualitative/quantitative analysis applied in Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 138, and Ringgold, 126 F.3d at 75. In those cases, when deciding how much of the copyrighted work had been copied, the Court considered "the amount of copying not only of direct quotations and close paraphrasing, but also of all other protectable expression in the original work." Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 140 n. 6. Here, the alleged copying was limited to direct quotation and close paraphrasing of the two measures of "Hard to Handle." Moreover, the works being compared here, unlike the works in Castle Rock and Ringgold, were produced in the same medium, and the styles, although different, are susceptible to comparison. Therefore, the fragmented literal similarity analysis is most appropriate in this case. Nonetheless, even under the quantitative/qualitative analysis, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the amount of material copied from "Hard to Handle" was more than de minimis." Lee: Patry further notes that Castle Rock has been recently criticized, and refers to 292 F. 3d 512, 523 (Ty, Inc. v. Publications International Ltd.). Alla: Taking this quote out of order just to make the point I wanted to make anyways. This is "Beanie Baby" case, which is as far as I could see very distinguishable on the facts. It was a suit of manufactures of beanie babies against publisher of beanie babies collector magasines. I am pretty sure court did found fair use there. Now more general point - the fact that case had been criticised ( in other words several cases distinguish this one either on the law or facts and quite a few cases do) means well, nothing as far as I know. As long as case is not overturned, it is a good law and judge has an absolute right and well, even duty to follow it AS LONG AS he finds that the case that he decides is similar to the precedent in this one. If judge finds that this case is different and decides to follow ANOTHER case which he finds similar to, well more power to the judge. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 19:07:34 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:07:34 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nora: > They did not, in the trial, really challenge the accusation > that they've massively infringed Lee: At this point I think we must be reading different trial transcripts. First, of course, the defense certainly DOES deny infringing -- that's what the whole case is about, after all. I suspect what you meant to say was "massively copied". Secondly, defense even denies "massively copying"; "paraphrase", "summary", etc. But I don't see anywhere in the transcripts where they acknowledge "massively copying" JKR's work. Alla: Well, as I mentioned in another post as I realised, no, even if the lexicon found to be infringing, that only means that plaintiff made out their prima facie case of infringement THEN defence has to prove the fair use affirmative defense. So, if they are absolutely confident that this is fair use, they do not have to bother to deny infringement. Now whether they do or not deny it, it is of course debatable and I tend to agree with Nora based on testimony like this from first day of trial for example: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday1.txt THE COURT: The way you asked the question was whether 25 he copied her work and he answered no. And I asked whether he 1 had copied from her work. He said he had given a general 2 answer. 3 THE WITNESS: To the broad question that you asked. 4 BY MR. SHALLMAN: 5 Q. The distinction may be lost on me but Mr. Rapoport -- 6 THE COURT: Well, that's why I thought I would call it 7 to your attention. 8 MR. SHALLMAN: Thank you. 9 Q. You are aware that Mr. Vander Ark copied specific language 10 from Ms. Rowling's work, aren't you? 11 A. Well, you are not -- you are not being specific about what 12 you are asking about, though. You need to be more specific 13 about what it is you are talking about. 14 Q. I'm just asking you, the entire 400-plus page Lexicon, is 15 there anything in there that is copied from Ms. Rowling? 16 A. The answer is that this book, the Harry Potter Lexicon is 17 fair use. 18 Q. That is not what I asked you. 19 Of that entire 400-plus page book that is going out 20 under RDR Books' name, is any of it copied from Ms. Rowling? 21 A. There is material in the -- yes, there is material in the 22 book that's based on -- absolutely, that's based on the Harry 23 Potter Lexicon series, of course. 24 Q. And, sir, you admit that there is material in the Lexicon 25 book that is based on the Harry Potter books that Ms. Rowling 205 84E5WAR6 1 wrote? 2 A. Yes. Alla: But when I think that plaintiffs' claims of infringement went unrebutted I am not even basing it on the admissions made by Rapaport, which plaintiffs lawyers nicely force out of him on cross examination IMO. I am basing it on not seeing how the exhibits in evidence by plaintiffs ( yes comparison charts, etc) were rebutted by defense evidence. So, yes I think that at least I can more or less confidently say that I predict that prima facie case of infringement was made. I can be wrong on this of course, but this is my prediction. What judge will find on fair use I still have no clue whatsoever. From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Sat Apr 26 19:40:20 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:40:20 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter used in church Message-ID: Not sure how much you lovely people will find this interesting, but I did At Mass tonight our priest had a Harry Potter book in his hand and proceeded to ask us waht we thought the reason was. He said that the book showed a lot of christian values. It should love, sacrifice and courage. He also used it as a way of saying that in death we always want a little more time than we have with our dying relatives /friends and this shows in HP &PS where Harry is looking in the mirror of desire and sees his parents and then wants longer with them than he could have It's great IMHO that the books that we love and discuss can be used in this way for those of us that believe in God.Jo Rowling IMHO would be pleased as she is a christian I hope this post does not give offense to thoose who do not believe in God. It is not meant to be a preach or anything like that. Jayne Who hopes and tries to be a good Catholic, but often fails From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 19:43:50 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:43:50 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nora wrote: > http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_williamsbroadus.html > > where you again get "direct quotation or close paraphrase" treated as equivalent issues. > Carol responds: Exactly. I've never said otherwise. In fact, I've given examples of "close paraphrase" that might as well be JKR's own words (and would be considered plagiarism in scholarly work, but that's irrelevant in a copyright case), for example "Spiders flee from it." JKR's lawyer gave at least one example of close paraphrase, the description of Madam Marchbanks as looking like her face was draped in cobwebs. "Draped in cobwebs" is JKR's phrase and should have been put in quotation marks even though the rest of the sentence is acceptably paraphrased. There's a difference between "*close* paraphrase and the combination of *acceptable* paraphrase and incorporated quotations illustrated in the comparison charts. And it does make a difference that the sources were cited; just look at JKR's lawyers saying that they aren't and then leaving off the citations in the charts, forcing those who want to check their honesty to look at the Lexicon itself, where the citations do appear. "*Close* paraphrase" is a rewording that's so close to the original wording that it's actually an altered quotation. Either the wording should be changed as completely as possible without altering the meaning (legitimate paraphrase) or the phrases that echo the author's original wording should be put in quotation marks and incorporated into the legitimate paraphrase or the whole thing should be put in quotation marks, with alterations indicated with square brackets or ellipses as appropriate. (You know all this already, having been a graduate student, but other posters might not.) JKR is charging the Lexicon with plagiarism (which he hasn't committed except in a few easily corrected cases because he's followed the procedure described in the previous paragraph) and with copying and pasting her words, which, again, he hasn't done and which the comparison chart actually *proves* he hasn't don in most cases. Not that plagiarism, which is an ethical violation, is the same as copyright infringement, but they overlap, and Steve V. has for the most part been careful to *avoid* plagiarizing JKR. His rewording (for the most part) changes the style from flamboyant and colorful and recognizably JKR's to the informative, impersonal style of a reference work. Paraphrase that does not reflect the style or use the wording of the original work is *not* protected by copyright law. And even close paraphrase, properly attributed, and quotations, properly attributed, fall under Fair Use--if the quantity and quality of the quotations (some quoted material, such as song lyrics within a larger work, being more important or "substantial" than others since they qualify as works within a work) are justified by the requirements of the secondary work. He should not have picked up her words without acknowledgment as he has done in a few places. He should not have used a complete or nearly complete song by the Sorting Hat in the revised entry (which is, nevertheless, a substantial improvement over the original, which consisted almost entirely of songs by the Sorting Hat). Song lyrics and poems *do* require permission, even in an unauthorized work. But legitimate paraphrase and summary are perfectly acceptable and do not require permission under any circumstances. And even close paraphrase and quotation (properly acknowledged as the author's own words or expression) are allowable under Fair Use if the amount of material that could be considered the original author's words or expression is justified by the type of secondary work, a reference work by its very nature requiring more of that sort of material than a critical analysis. Works that are entirely "derivative" and not at all "transformative" fall under copyright protection and must be authorized by the copyright holder. That applies to indexes. translations, abridgements, and probably concordances. Audio recordings and movie adaptations must also be authorized. But the Lexicon is not an adaptation of the HP works, and it incorporates material from other sources, including the public domain, and includes occasional commentary. It is not the kind of work traditionally within the author's copyright protection, nor is it clearly the type of work generally protected by fair use. That's why we're having this discussion. At any rate, "*close*" paraphrase falls under the category of "original expression" and the amount that can be used is limited (though no limit has been or can be specified because each secondary work has different requirements). The Lexicon can't say that Madam Marchbanks's skin looked like it was draped in cobwebs without putting "draped in cobwebs" in quotation marks and citing the source. "Draped with cobwebs" is a close paraphrase, so close to the original that it borders on plagiarism, and would require an introduction which indicates that the description is JKR's own: "Madam Marchbanks is described as looking like her skin was draped with cobwebs." Better to use the original wording in quotation marks with the source cited to be safe. But *legitimate* paraphrase, which does not duplicate or echo the original wording, is not protected by copyright. The Lexicon can say that Madam Marchbanks was an ancient witch with deeply wrinkled skin without having to attribute the paraphrase. In short, "close paraphrase" is, with regard to scholarship, a form of plagiarism. With regard to copyright law, it's a form of "original expression" indistinguishable from direct quotation. But paraphrase that alters the wording without altering the meaning is another matter altogether. Carol, agreeing to disagree with regard to "ideas" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 20:02:59 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:02:59 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Doddie wrote: > > I got it..if no one else did..no one could ever site them w/o > permission...the Lexi is more protected than JKR's works... Carol responds: Just a small point here. Of course, it requires permission to post material from the Lexicon to your own website, but we're protected by the Fair Use doctrine in our discussions on this website and HPfGu. IOW, we can quote from the Lexicon if we cite the source and include commentary, whether we're analyzing the Lexicon itself or using the Lexicon to support our points about the HP books (in which case it would be what's called a "secondary source".) The online Lexicon, like the HP books, is a copyrighted work and for the purposes of copyright law has been "published" (made available to the public). So Steve V. has no more and no less protection than JKR. As for the unpublished print Lexicon, which is now on the Internet, the rules are a bit less clear, but since I quoted only a small portion for the purpose of showing that it did not copy and paste FB, I'm pretty sure that falls under fair use. Carol, ready to cite the Fair Use Doctrine in the unlikely event that Steve V. objects to my posts defending his Lexicon From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 20:11:55 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:11:55 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: That case and that book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48138C8B.1040507@yahoo.com> Me: > on quantitative grounds. In short, the distinction does not appear > to have been critical even within Castle Rock. nrenka: > Actually, I think it is. You can't establish a quantitative analysis > without first deciding what constitutes the infringement Hmm ... I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As I said, what I see is that the "fictional facts" distinction informed one part of the court's determination of infringement. I do not see it underlying the major portion of the court's analysis. Me: > Even absent any scholarly analysis or commentary, *is* a > value. A consulter of the lexicon would be spared the hours > or days of work .... > However, remember that 'sweat of the brow'/work amount does > not, per Feist, make something transformative. But that's a different argument. I'm not talking about how much work the creator of the secondary work has done; I'm talking about whether the work he has done adds value. The fact alone that the lexicon collates disparate passages into a coherent whole *is* a value, in the same way that I consult an encylopedia. As an example, I offer the Wikipedia article on "Spoo" from the Babylon 5 sci-fi series: "Spoo is a fictional food product that served as a running joke within the Babylon 5 science fiction television series. In the series' fictional universe, spoo is made from alien worm-like creatures of the same name, and is considered to be the most delicious food in the galaxy, regardless of which species is asked. Although it is a universally loved foodstuff and an actively traded commodity, the creature itself is regarded with contempt by the races that consume it. "Spoo became part of the series' extended mythology, and was embraced by fans of the series... Spoo appeared in the first episode of the science fiction television series Babylon 5.... "The Babylon 5 episodes in which spoo appears or is mentioned are "Midnight on the Firing Line," [etc.]" There is nothing original in the spoo article; every fact -- both real world and fictional -- could be obtained elsewhere, if I were willing to do all the research. I *could* sit down and wade through the entire series for all references to spoo, or I could simply consult the spoo article's list of spoo-referencing episodes. I could then hit google to try to find the etymology of "spoo" or, again, simply consult the article. I could go search all the B5-related Internet message boards for spoo-related messages by J. Michael Straczynski, the show's creator, to determine for myself the origins of spoo, or -- again -- simply consult the article. One need only check the footnotes of the spoo article to see how many disparate sources the article's compiler pulled together in writing the article. The mere fact that *I* don't have to consult all those sources individually simply to get an overview of spoo *is* a genuine value to me. And this also raises a question of infringement at Wikipedia. If the "facts" cited in SVA's lexicon are (per Castle Rock) legally protected and by that fact infringed, what about the spoo article? Are not the spoo "facts" the property of the series' creator? Is Wikipedia not infringing his copyright merely by retelling them? How do you legally distinguish between Wikipedia's discussion of copyrighted spoo "facts", the HP Lexicon's re-presentation of, say, the "facts" of Dumbledore's life? How is one permissably infringing if the other is not? > As for purpose, I read FB for entertainment, but part of that > 'entertainment' value is that I learn some details of JKR's world Again, there is a necessary distinction to be made between the use to which *you* put the Lexicon and the *purpose* of the Lexicon; that is to say, *your* purpose need not be the same as the Lexicon's purpose. As an example, I use a baseball bat to silence my neigbor's barking dog. While *my* purpose for the baseball bat was dog-icide, that hardly means the purpose *of* a baseball bat is canine slaying. Or, just because you read Wikipedia for entertainment doesn't mean the purpose *of* Wikipedia is to entertain. No matter how much fun it may be to read, the purpose of an encyclopedia remains informational. CJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 20:19:18 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:19:18 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <4812F8B1.6010004@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lee (CJ) wrote: > As I read the Castle Rock decision, the court seems to have given far more weight to the transformational argument than it did to its point about protection of fictional facts. > > "We have stated that 'substantial similarity' requires that the copying [be] quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support the legal conclusion that infringement (actionable copying) has occurred. The qualitative component concerns the copying of expression, rather than ideas[, facts, works in the public domain, or any other non-protectable elements] . . . . The quantitative component generally concerns the amount of the copyrighted work that is copied...." Carol responds: Right. The *amount" of copying, which varies from work to work, and the kind of copying matter. "Actionable copying" involves "expression," not ideas. Lee (CJ): > The court rejects the transformative argument in the Seinfeld case on the grounds that the *purposes* were pretty much the same: > > "The court rejected defendant's arguments holding that any > transformative purpose posed by the book was slight or non-existent. It concluded that the purpose of the book was to entertain the Seinfeld audience with a book about Seinfeld, much the same purpose as the television show." Carol responds: Right again. "Transformative *purpose*." The Seinfeld trivia book had the same purpose as the as the TV show. In contrast, the Lexicon (in whatever form) is intended to supplement JKR's works and inform, not entertain, the reader. So, I agree with you. The Castle Rock decision is not relevant to JKR vs. RDR. Carol, hoping that the Lexicon case will provide a precedent supporting or expanding fair use From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 20:55:35 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:55:35 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > Well, try this case for example, where basically plaintiffs allege > breach of copyright by the defendants who produced movie supposedly > based on their screenplay. > > Price v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. > Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 241389 (S.D.N.Y.) > Court here denied defendant's motion for summary judgment saying > that question of substantial similarity between two works must be > decided by the trier of fact, but what I find significant is that > judge does NOT does NOT examine dialog only, he examines everything ? > feel, theme characters, plot, sequence and setting. > > "C. Actionable Infringement > After examining each work's "total concept and feel, theme, > characters, plot, sequence, pace, and setting," [FN79] I cannot find > as a matter of law that each and every similar element between the > two works is non-protectable. A jury could reasonably conclude > that " 'the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the > disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard [the > works'] aesthetic appeal as the same." ' [FN80] > FN79. Williams, 84 F.3d at 588. > > FN80. Boisson, 273 F.3d at 272 (quoting Folio Impressions, 937 F.2d > at 765). Carol responds: But the problem with using this case to compare with JKR vs. RDR is that a screenplay and a movie are the same type of work. They have the same *purpose*, to entertain audiences using dialogue, characters, plot, setting, and all the elements of a dramatic (or literary) work. But the "transformative purpose" of the Lexicon is obviously *not* to write a novel or entertain readers with characters, plots, settings, themes, and dialogue taken from the HP books and claimed as an original work. The purpose of the Lexicon is to provide information about the HP books, which, of course, must be largely obtained *from* the HP books, for the "transformative purpose" of informing readers who are already fans of the HP books. It is not stealing ideas from the HP books to compete with them, as the case you've cited does. For example, if I were to create a sarcastic, black-haired, sallow-complexioned chemistry teacher and give him lines that might have been spoken by a certain tart-tongued Potions master, particularly if he was fond of putting students in detention or deducting house points, JKR would have a legitimate case against me because I would have stolen Severus Snape. But the Lexicon is using information from the books to *inform* readers who presumably have already read the books *about* Severus Snape (and many other topics). If I want to be entertained by Severus Snape, I'm not going to read the Lexicon (though I might consult it to help me remember where some particularly delicious passage was). With regard to a literary character, the more specifically he's described, the more likely it is that the writer of a novel using a similar character might be infringing on the original author's copyright. But information or analysis of a literary character (or element of the setting or artifact) with no claim to have originated that character (no reader of the Lexicon is under the misconception that Steve V. invented Snape--or Hogwarts or Blast-Ended Skrewts, for that matter) is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. Using a character clearly copied from another author and claiming him as your own creation is not. BTW, and this has nothing to do with Alla's post, has anyone read the Orson Scott Card and Ken Jennings responses to the case? If not, the links are up at Leaky (which is to be commended for posting them since the Leaky editors are all on JKR's side and the Card and Jennings responses favor JKR, Card's response being harsh and highly critical of JKR and Jennings's being calmer and more objective). Carol, finding it hard to drop out of this conversation, probably because it's so important to all of us From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 21:17:06 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:17:06 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla quoted from the testimony (the witness is Riger Rapaport of RDR): > THE COURT: The way you asked the question was whether he copied her work and he answered no. And I asked whether he had copied from her work. >MR. SHALLMAN: You are aware that Mr. Vander Ark copied specific language from Ms. Rowling's work, aren't you? I'm just asking you, the entire 400-plus page Lexicon, is there anything in there that is copied from Ms. Rowling? [Rapaport]: The answer is that this book, the Harry Potter Lexicon is fair use. [Shalman]: That is not what I asked you. Of that entire 400-plus page book that is going out under RDR Books' name, is any of it copied from Ms.Rowling? [Rapaport]: There is material in the -- yes, there is material in the book that's based on -- absolutely, that's based on the Harry Potter Lexicon series, of course. [Shalman]: And, sir, you admit that there is material in the Lexicon book that is based on the Harry Potter books that Ms. Rowling wrote? [Rapaport]: Yes. Carol responds: All of which amounts to: Shalman: Is any material in the Lexicon copied from the HP books? Rapaport: Yes. There are quotations and close paraphrases, of course, since it's a reference work for the Harry Potter books. But the quotations and paraphrases fall under fair use. The only interesting bit of this testimony (to me) is the bit at the beginning, which seems to indicate that Steve V. initially denied copying the HP books in any respect, which seems to reflect his confusion over what does and does not constitute fair use. Rapaport, in contrast, clearly does know about fair use and was in a hurry to establish that the "copying" (quotations and close paraphrase) fell under fair use, meaning that the "transformative purpose" of the Lexicon required a substantial amount of (acknowledged) "copying." If I had been Rapaport, I would have asked Shalman, "Do you mean, 'Does the Lexicon contain quotations and paraphrases from Ms. Rowling's works?'" A little clarification never hurts, and it's important to understand the question that you're answering. Carol, who thinks that this little exchange does nothing more than state the obvious From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 21:21:24 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:21:24 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > BTW, and this has nothing to do with Alla's post, has anyone read the > Orson Scott Card and Ken Jennings responses to the case? If not, the > links are up at Leaky (which is to be commended for posting them since > the Leaky editors are all on JKR's side and the Card and Jennings > responses favor JKR, Card's response being harsh and highly critical > of JKR and Jennings's being calmer and more objective). > > Carol, finding it hard to drop out of this conversation, probably > because it's so important to all of us > Alla: Well, I mentioned it before, but this is good moment to mention it again. I think Leaky provides excellent excellent coverage of this case, yes despite being on JKR side. And they link to all articles, positive or negative. I read those links. I found what Orson Card wrote to be loads of uninformed crap and RUDE to boot. Not that some of the responses to his article on Leaky to him were not rude as well of course. I can only second the everybody has a right to express an opinion, but please check your facts first Mr. Card. And eh, I disagreed with Neil Gaiman opinion on this case for the most part too, which is also linked on Leaky, but I loved loved the way he expressed it. And I loved his follow up as well, he expressed his sympathies, but he presented the underlying reasoning, he is wonderful, Neil Gaiman of course. Card though - yes, I believe jealousy of JKR shines through very clearly. My opinion of course and only my opinion. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 21:25:38 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:25:38 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > If I had been Rapaport, I would have asked Shalman, "Do you mean, > 'Does the Lexicon contain quotations and paraphrases from Ms. > Rowling's works?'" A little clarification never hurts, and it's > important to understand the question that you're answering. Alla: And if I had been your lawyer, I would have advised you to NOT get into argument with the lawyer who cross-examines you. I do not understand the question is the only answer you should give if you do not understand the question on the stand in my opinion. Then either judge will ask the lawyer to rephrase or your lawyer will object to form. > Carol, who thinks that this little exchange does nothing more than > state the obvious > Alla: The obvious being that Lexicon copied JKR's work in my opinion. This example I quoted in responce to Lee's argument that defense denied copying. This part I interpret as exactly the opposite. Which is of course open to interpretation. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 21:37:15 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:37:15 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > BTW, and this has nothing to do with Alla's post, has anyone read the Orson Scott Card and Ken Jennings responses to the case? If not, the links are up at Leaky (which is to be commended for posting them since the Leaky editors are all on JKR's side and the Card and Jennings responses favor JKR, Card's response being harsh and highly critical of JKR and Jennings's being calmer and more objective). Alla responded: > I read those links. I found what Orson Card wrote to be loads of uninformed crap and RUDE to boot. Not that some of the responses to his article on Leaky to him were not rude as well of course. > > I can only second the everybody has a right to express an opinion, but please check your facts first Mr. Card. > Card though - yes, I believe jealousy of JKR shines through very clearly. My opinion of course and only my opinion. Carol responds: I agree that Card was rude, and he certainly didn't hesitate to engage in namecalling (calling JKR a hypocrite). I suspect he's made an enemy for life. :-) However, I did find his point that JKR encouraged books (such as "The Great Snape Debate" by Card and a co-author) that came out before DH and served as part of the publicity campaign but seems to have changed tactics now that DH has been published and is calling books that quote or paraphrase her works copyright infringement to be valid. I wouldn't call his article "uninformed crap." I think it's informed opinion rudely expressed. (I've seen equal rudeness directed toward Steve V. by much less well-informed people on Leaky.) I thought that the Jennings article, which made similar points without resorting to namecalling or incivility, was balanced and fair. I didn't find anything in it to disagree with, and I liked his sympathy for the unemployed librarian, admittedly an emotional appeal rather than an appeal to reason. It's an appeal for understanding and sympathy, both of which appear to be in small supply in discussions of this case. (I don't mean here on OT Chatter; I mean elsewhere on the Net, including Card's attack on JKR.) Carol, who would quote passages from the articles but has spent too much time doing that sort of thing lately From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 21:43:24 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:43:24 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > > > If I had been Rapaport, I would have asked Shalman, "Do you mean, 'Does the Lexicon contain quotations and paraphrases from Ms. Rowling's works?'" A little clarification never hurts, and it's important to understand the question that you're answering. > > Alla: > > And if I had been your lawyer, I would have advised you to NOT get into argument with the lawyer who cross-examines you. I do not understand the question is the only answer you should give if you do not understand the question on the stand in my opinion. Then either judge will ask the lawyer to rephrase or your lawyer will object to> form. > Caarol: Not an argument, just a polite request for clarification. If I'm answering yes or no to a question, I want to understand the question I'm answering (as, it seems, Steve V. did not.) Rapaport tried the "I don't understand the question" tactic, and all he got was a repetition of the "copying" question. I think he had every right to know what Shalman meant by "copying" before appearing to incriminate himself. (Wrong word, I know. It's a civil case. But I'd have wanted to make sure that he didn't mean copying and pasting the whole document or plagiarism or anything of the sort. Carol, who hopes that you as my lawyer would have helped me to ask that question or asked it for me because the definition of "copying" is central to the case > > > > Carol, who thinks that this little exchange does nothing more than > > state the obvious > > > > > Alla: > > The obvious being that Lexicon copied JKR's work in my opinion. This > example I quoted in responce to Lee's argument that defense denied > copying. > > This part I interpret as exactly the opposite. Which is of course > open to interpretation. > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 21:43:43 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:43:43 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > I agree that Card was rude, and he certainly didn't hesitate to engage > in namecalling (calling JKR a hypocrite). I suspect he's made an enemy > for life. :-) However, I did find his point that JKR encouraged books > (such as "The Great Snape Debate" by Card and a co-author) that came > out before DH and served as part of the publicity campaign but seems > to have changed tactics now that DH has been published and is calling > books that quote or paraphrase her works copyright infringement to be > valid. I wouldn't call his article "uninformed crap." I think it's > informed opinion rudely expressed. Alla: We have to agree to disagree on it, because the books that JKR encouraged, mind you not just chose to look the other way to me seem to be vastly different from Lexicon book. But yes we agree on rudely expressed part. Carol: (I've seen equal rudeness directed > toward Steve V. by much less well-informed people on Leaky.) Alla: Of course. I saw it too. And how is that relevant? I saw plenty of rudeness towards JKR on Leaky too ( by the posters), just as I saw plenty of cool posts and many great links. I think Leaky is just doing great job as journalists allowing all range of opinions and giving as many facts as they can find. I know one thing - I do love Card's Ender Game and will like it always, but oh dear I do not respect him anymore. Not as a private person, as public one of course. And speaking more about Neil Gaiman, his follow up seems to be even more neutral, and nailing issues well. Love Neil, love, but why did he wrote that screenplay LOL, why :) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 22:27:43 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:27:43 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective - Filling in Blanks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > ... > > bboyminn: > > I was just reading the Transcript of Day 1 of the trial in which > Mr. Rapoport of RDR Publishing is testifying. In it was a > reference to an email send from RDR to Steve Vander Ark which > goes like this, which for me confirms my suspicions. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > Q. Now, first of all, you said in this e-mail to > Mr. Vander Ark: Anything you say in public can and will be > used against you. Did you say that to him? > > A. Yes. > - - - - - - - - - - - - > > As I suspected SteveV was warned that if he spoke out against > the publisher, or in any way tried to sabotage the marketing > of the book, the publisher would use those statements against > SteveV in a civil suit. > > ... bboyminn: Nothing special in this post or the one above, just filling in some of the blanks that to me confirm that I was justified in supporting SteveV. I'm not saying he didn't make a mistake, but I think many fans have mistaken as to exactly the extent and nature of the mistake he made. Again, just quoting one small point from the DAY TWO of the court proceedings. - - - - - - - - - - - - Q. And, isn't it true that the reason these books are being done with a different publisher is that you believe RDR has lied to you and misled you in this case? A. No, that's not true. MR. HAMMER: Objection. ... Ms. CENDALI: I would like to show you what we will mark as Exhibit --... Exhibit 196. Mr. Vander Ark, is Exhibit 196 a series of e-mails you exchanged with a Melissa Annelli? A. Yes, it is. Q. Who is Melissa Annelli. A. She is the web mistress of another Harry Potter fan site. Q. And turning to the second to last page, 4 of 5...: I am more than ready to disassociate myself from RDR. They have lied to me, misled me, taken advantage of me and, in the end, ruined my good standing with fans and with Rowling. ... Q. Again, do you see that where you wrote: I am more than ready to disassociate myself with RDR. They have lied to me, misled me, taken advantage of me and, in the end, ruined my good standing with fans and with Rowling. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. You wrote that, right? MR. HAMMER: I object, ... A. Could you ask me the question again, please? Q. That was something you wrote and believed, correct? A. Yes. Q. Isn't it true that once this is over, as you wrote, for better or worse, I won't be working with them anymore. ... A. Yes, ma'am. - - - - - - - - - - - - - As I asserted before, I think SteveV is deeply sorry he got involved with RDR but is compelled by his contract with them to side with them, or at least not side against them, in this matter. I'm convinced if it was fully in SteveV's hands, he would just drop the whole thing, and would have done so very early on. But as I also said, it is in the hands of the publisher now, and SteveV is just along for the ride; a very bumpy and damaging ride. I've been watching some YouTube videos of SteveV speaking at fan conventions, and he is very well received and a very dynamic and funny speaker for a nerd (a term that I don't think he would find offensive). The fans who hear him, seem to love him, and it is truly a shame that this case has, as likely it has, damaged his standing with them. I hope most will adopt a forgive and forget attitude, and accept that we all make mistakes. I hope they will try to understand that position that SteveV has been forced into. Though, while I hope that, I think we can all see that SteveV clearly did make a grave mistake in getting involved with RDR. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 22:36:24 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:36:24 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective - We're Mentioned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry, just a bit of trivia that I came across as I was reading the DAY TWO transcript. We get mentioned! Whoo-Hoo! - - - - - - - - - - - - Q. Did the time come when you began to exchange your notes with other people? A. I started putting some lists together of facts. I was part of a group called **Harry Potter for Grown-ups** which was an online discussion group for adult fans, and a lot of them were discussing things in the books. - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday2.txt bottom of page 335 Just thought you might like to know. Steve/bboyminn From n2fgc at arrl.net Sat Apr 26 23:14:54 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:14:54 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a Different Perspective - Filling in Blanks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000d01c8a7f3$56a11d30$67a4a8c0@FRODO> What I love is how other authors seem to feel about this. Here's the link from Leaky: http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/26/jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-trial-opinions Seems to me that several highly noted authors are not on JKR's side here. I admit I had to smile when I read this posting. Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 23:32:47 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:32:47 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: That case and that book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4813BB9F.2040004@yahoo.com> Alla: > The obvious being that Lexicon copied JKR's work in my opinion. This > example I quoted in responce to Lee's argument that defense denied > copying. The exchange with nrenka (without digging through back messages) was roughly as follows: nrenka: the defendants did not deny massively (her word) infringing. Me: Of course they deny massively infringing. You probably meant "massively copying". But then of course they would deny "massively" copying as well. My reply was in response mostly to the "massively" characterization. Certainly everyone all 'round understands that there is some amount of copying. I highly doubt, however, the defendants would accede to a loaded averb such as "massively". Alla: > Well, try this case for example [citing the Snoop Doggie Dog > case].... > While I did not see the expression "fiction facts" used > verbatum in the decision, I would argue that determination > made partially based on this dicta language as well. Me now: Thanks, but again what I'm looking for is not another case with similar reasoning, or similar distinctions, but another court decision which specifically and explicitly cites the Castle Rock "fictional facts" as precedent. My point being that I've seen many people (mostly amateurs like myself who really have no business offering legal opinions :-) ) *assume* that the "fictional facts" distinctive is a precedent, but I want to know if any court every actually *has* treated it as a precedent. Alla: > And I did keysited Castle rock on Westlaw, found about 750 cases > where it was cited... Me now: Yes, Castle Rock *has* been cited extensively, but never, so far as I can tell, on its "fictional facts" distinction. Now in the interests of fairness, I *have* seen one case (namely, the Beanie Baby decision) which specifically and explicitly NOTES the "fictional facts" distinction of Castle Rock, but declines to make use of it. Alla: > This is "Beanie Baby" case .... I am pretty sure court did > found fair use there. Me now: It did, based partially on the fact that Ty, the copyright holder of Beanie Babies, did not deny the collectors' guides were not derivative works. Alla: > As long as case is not overturned, it is a good law and judge > has an absolute right and well, even duty to follow it Hmm? Do you mean you're of the opinion that the "fictional facts" distinction is actually a BINDING precedent? I can't see where it's been used as precedent at all, let alone considered as binding. Alla: > So, if they are absolutely confident that this is fair use, > they do not have to bother to deny infringement. OK, I'm searching for language here to distinguish between copying that is permissible and copying that is not. Is it proper to refer to permissible copying as "infringement", or is "infringement" reserved specifically for impermissible copying? Perhaps, picking up on Carol, "infringement" vs. "actionable infringement"? If "infringement" is properly applied to permissible copying, then I would agree with your above statement, since in that case, acknowledgement of infringement is not tantamount to acknowledge of guilt. But I'm assuming "infringement" specifically means "impermissible copying". In that case, I'd highly doubt to hear defendants agreeing to characterize their use as "infringing". Sorry, gotta go. CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 23:53:23 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:53:23 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <48138C8B.1040507@yahoo.com> References: <48138C8B.1040507@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4813C073.7000701@yahoo.com> Mea culpa: > Me: > > > Even absent any scholarly analysis or commentary, *is* a > > value. A consulter of the lexicon would be spared the hours > > or days of work .... > > > However, remember that 'sweat of the brow'/work amount does > > not, per Feist, make something transformative. The second part of the quote above, starting with "However, remember..." should have been attributed to nrenka. Me again: > what I see is that the "fictional facts" distinction informed > one part of the court's determination of infringement. Perhaps it would be better to say, "informed one part of the court's determination of PRIMA FACIE infringement. Alla: > Lee: Just for everyone's information, you may refer to me either as CJ or Kaiwen. Lee is my Chinese surname which, in Chinese fashion, precedes my given name, Kaiwen. CJ are my English initials (well, two out of five of them, anyway). And don't anyoone even THINK about apologizing. I'm not in the least offended :-) CJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 00:12:16 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:12:16 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <4813BB9F.2040004@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alla: > As long as case is not overturned, it is a good law and judge > has an absolute right and well, even duty to follow it CJ: Hmm? Do you mean you're of the opinion that the "fictional facts" distinction is actually a BINDING precedent? I can't see where it's been used as precedent at all, let alone considered as binding. Alla: Here is the thing. Usually or often court will specifically say what part of the reasoning is holding of the case and what is dicta ( sort of secondary language, but also part of the reasoning of the case), but I do not believe that you can say that any PART of the case is separate precedent, the WHOLE case is a precedent. Does it make sense? Of course holding of the case is often more important and the case will be more often cited for that proposition, but I do not believe that anything stops the judge who is going to follow the case to use dicta as a precedent. It is not like dicta contradicts holding in this case in my opinion. Of course it is easier to appeal the case if the precedent is used primarily for dicta language, but not necessarily. So, what I am trying to say is that I believe that your expression " the "fictional facts" distinction is actually a BINDING precedent" is not quite correct ? the whole case is a binding precedent and PART of it certainly can be used as the law to be followed even if nobody used it after the case was decided. CJ: OK, I'm searching for language here to distinguish between copying that is permissible and copying that is not. Is it proper to refer to permissible copying as "infringement", or is "infringement" reserved specifically for impermissible copying? Perhaps, picking up on Carol, "infringement" vs. "actionable infringement"? If "infringement" is properly applied to permissible copying, then I would agree with your above statement, since in that case, acknowledgement of infringement is not tantamount to acknowledge of guilt. But I'm assuming "infringement" specifically means "impermissible copying". In that case, I'd highly doubt to hear defendants agreeing to characterize their use as "infringing". Alla: I am not saying that defendants have to agree to characterize their use as infringement, I am saying that it is my understanding that even if plaintiffs proved the infringement, it can still be protected by fair use affirmative defense, but the burden to prove it will be solely upon defendants. (I mean, I am sure plaintiffs have rebuttal witnesses anyways, but theoretically if they decide, those hypothetical plaintiffs that defendant did not prove the defense, they do not have to put rebuttal witness on the stand.) Of course defendants can choose to fight plaintiff's prima facie case. For example in my area of law all that plaintiffs have to prove is that they timely submitted the bill to the insurance company. That is it, this is their prima facie case. Now since some time medical necessity of the services became affirmative defense and therefore the burden is upon me to prove with sufficient particularity that services were not medically necessary. So, here is what often happens during the trials we conduct ( and of course our trials may last couple hours so it is no comparison but principle is the same). Sometimes plaintiff and defendant will STIPULATE that both sides proved their prima facie case and the only issue at trial will be medical necessity. We choose to do it for various reasons, but one of them is because for the most part it is VERY EASY for plaintiff to prove their prima facie case and if I have no reasons to attack it, it will save time for everybody. Now of course sometimes when I have a reason to believe that I may poke holes in plaintiff's prima facie case, which is not happening too often, I will not stipulate, etc. Of course I do not believe that anybody stipulated to plaintiff's prima facie case in this trial, but that does not mean that defendants rebutted it either. Does it make sense? Lee: Just for everyone's information, you may refer to me either as CJ or Kaiwen. Lee is my Chinese surname which, in Chinese fashion, precedes my given name, Kaiwen. CJ are my English initials (well, two out of five of them, anyway). And don't anyone even THINK about apologizing. I'm not in the least offended :-) CJ Alla: Eh, sorry? :) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 01:21:11 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:21:11 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective - Filling in Blanks In-Reply-To: <000d01c8a7f3$56a11d30$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > What I love is how other authors seem to feel about this. > Here's the link from Leaky: > http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/26/jkr-wb-vs-rdr-books-trial-opinions > > Seems to me that several highly noted authors are not on JKR's > side here. I admit I had to smile when I read this posting. > > Lee :-) bboyminn: I was especially shocked by Orson Scott Card's opinion on the matter. Card is usually a pretty conservative guy, being a Mormon and all. So, for him to rail so aggressively against JKR was shocking. I only read the excerpt, but it was intense. I will real the full blog later tonight. It should be interesting. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 01:34:04 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:34:04 -0000 Subject: That case and that book - "Copy" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Carol" wrote: > > Carol: > > > >> If I had been Rapaport, I would have asked Shalman, "Do > >> you mean,'Does the Lexicon contain quotations and > >> paraphrases from Ms. Rowling's works?'" A little > >> clarification never hurts, and it's important to > >> understand the question that you're answering. > > > > Alla: > > > > And if I had been your lawyer, I would have advised you to > > NOT get into argument with the lawyer who cross-examines > > you. .. > > > Carol: > Not an argument, just a polite request for clarification. If > I'm answering yes or no to a question, I want to understand > the question I'm answering (as, it seems, Steve V. did not.) > Rapaport tried the "I don't understand the question" tactic, > and all he got was a repetition of the "copying" question. I > think he had every right to know what Shalman meant by > "copying" before appearing to incriminate himself. > bboyminn: If you read the transcripts, as many of you seem to have done, you know that the WB's attorney's are continually trying to force the word 'copy' into questions in any and all contexts in the desperate hope of getting positive acknowledgment so they can turn around and say, see he said he copied. It is a pretty untransparent and obvious maneuver. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 01:42:20 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:42:20 -0000 Subject: Paraphrase and Fair Use Message-ID: One last time, I hope. Paraphrasing that completely rephrases the original is not copying and therefore not copyright infringement. Here's a short quotation from a site called Fair Use in a Nutshell: "Synthesizing facts in your own words is better than verbatim copying. However, close paraphrasing may constitute copyright infringement if done extensively." http://copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html Note "*close* paraphrasing," not paraphrasing per se. I think the problem is that many people don't know a good paraphrase from a bad one and think that a paraphrase is the same as an indirect quotation, which it is not. Here's an excellent definition/explanation from a different website, admittedly geared toward avoiding plagiarism rather than copyright infringement: "A good paraphrase presents the essence of what someone else has written or said, but in no way does it present the wording--or even the same sentence structure and organisation--contained in the original." http://www.ajdrake.com/e434_spr_04/materials/guides/wr_plagiphrasing.htm IOW, a good paraphrase is no longer recognizable as the original author's words or expression. It must, of course, still be credited to avoid plagiarism, and citing sources is a good idea to avoid copyright problems as well. According to Fair Use in a Nutshell, citing sources, while not sufficient in itself to determine fair use, does help: "Lack of credit, or improper credit, weighs against finding fair use. However, giving someone appropriate credit, will not, alone transform a 'foul' use into a 'fair use.'" http://copylaw.com/new_articles/fairuse.html And BTW. I looked up the Berne Convention's Fair Use policy, which Goddlefrood tells us supersedes copyright law. Here it is, short and sweet (well, short and simple, actually): BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971) "Article 10 "(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries. "(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice. "(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon. IOW, you really should cite your source when you're quoting. Nothing about paraphrasing, which apparently doesn't count as "copying" for the purposes of the Berne Convention. Also, the U.S. Fair Use Doctrine, though not quite so simple, does not appear to be in conflict with this one. I could be wrong on one or both counts, however, as I didn't look at anything except this one provision. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/10.html On another source that I'm not citing because I couldn't tell who the author was or what his credentials were, I found the interesting remark that "only a judge can distinguish between ideas and expression." Maybe we should let it rest there. Carol, for whom "expression" (in a literary work) means "the way in which ideas are expressed" and of necessity includes the actual words used to express those ideas From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 02:10:06 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:10:06 -0000 Subject: That case and that book - "Copy" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > If you read the transcripts, as many of you seem to have > done, you know that the WB's attorney's are continually trying > to force the word 'copy' into questions in any and all > contexts in the desperate hope of getting positive > acknowledgment so they can turn around and say, see he said > he copied. > > It is a pretty untransparent and obvious maneuver. > > Steve/bboyminn > Alla: Well, yes to support one's argument that defendants copied, it is helpful to try to make defendant's witnesses to admit that they actually...copied. I mean, is there something wrong with this maneuver, as long as it seeks to elicit something that plaintiffs allege in good faith defendants did? If I want to argue that plaintiff's doctor treated patient excessively, you bet I will ask questions with the words "excessive treatment" in there. If witness did not copy or not treated excessively, they will answer that way and no amount of questions will elicit something that they do not want to say. Actually no scratch that, sometimes good attorney IS able to elicit from witness the information that witness is not willing to share. But no amount of forceful cross-examination will make witness say something that witness did not DO. Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 06:29:42 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:29:42 -0000 Subject: That case and that book - "Copy" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > If you read the transcripts, as many of you seem to have > > done, you know that the WB's attorney's are continually > > trying to force the word 'copy' into questions in any and > > all contexts in the desperate hope of getting positive > > acknowledgment so they can turn around and say, see he said > > he copied. > > > > It is a pretty untransparent and obvious maneuver. > > > > Steve/bboyminn > > > > > Alla: > > Well, yes to support one's argument that defendants copied, it is > helpful to try to make defendant's witnesses to admit that they > actually...copied. > > bboyminn: Yes, but apparently you have ignored the part where I mention CONTEXT. They are forcing the word 'copy' into unrelated contexts. For example: (Paraphrased) I remember a questions about updating the Lexicon after book 7 came out. It went something like this - After book 7 came out did you copy new information from that book into the Lexicon and update your entries? (again, paraphrased) This is very much like the old question 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?'. It is a question that really can't be answered either way. If the person answers 'Yes' meaning, yes, they updated the Lexicon after book 7, the lawyer will interpret that as an admission that they COPIED information from JKR's book. If they answer 'No' meaning they did not 'copy', then the lawyer will accuse them of lying because the Lexicon was in fact updated. The lawyers is tying the word 'copy' to an unrelated context in hope of tricking the person into a positive acknowledgment so they can twist it into an unintended context. Fortunately, the efforts were so blatantly obvious that they couldn't get anyone to fall for it. Now there were all kinds of other questions that were more to the point, that compared entries between the Lexicon and canon text, etc.... But the WB lawyer tried this out of context 'copy' ploy so often that I have no doubt it hurt their case. So, in that sense, I guess I shouldn't complain. Steve/bboyminn From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 07:14:03 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:14:03 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <48138C8B.1040507@yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen wrote: > As an example, I offer the Wikipedia article on "Spoo" from the > Babylon 5 sci-fi series: > There is nothing original in the spoo article; every fact -- both > real world and fictional -- could be obtained elsewhere, if I were > willing to do all the research. I *could* sit down and wade through > the entire series for all references to spoo, or I could simply > consult the spoo article's list of spoo-referencing episodes. What a beautiful example of a derivative work that is. :) It's certainly not analytical--I'd return it to one of my students with a "where's your thesis?" note at the very top. It may well be *useful*, but I don't think it passes the transformation test, which to my reading of the examples and cases, is somewhat more stringent than it's often taken to be. Campbell sez: "..."transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message." 'Expression' is slippery here--is the compression of the text into one place enough to count? Because the meaning is certainly not changed. Oh, that tricky phrase "any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted." The fact that anyone could do the Lexicon, given the time and motivation, and have it come out substantially similar, working on the principle of not adding anything of commentary or personal bias...well, we'll see. > And this also raises a question of infringement at Wikipedia. If the > "facts" cited in SVA's lexicon are (per Castle Rock) legally > protected and by that fact infringed, what about the spoo article? > Are not the spoo "facts" the property of the series' creator? Is > Wikipedia not infringing his copyright merely by retelling them? Oh, I think Wikipedia frequently infringes. But it's the prerogative of a copyright holder to enforce copyright as he pleases, without dilution of those rights, as copyright is not trademark. You may object that that's capricious, but it's the law as it stands. This is why the 'implied license' argument rightfully scares the crap out of all of us who like fandom. If RDR wins on that (unlikely), it's nothing but motivation for creators to crack down on fan sites they might otherwise let slide, as long as they're not profiteering. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 08:19:36 2008 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:19:36 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood wrote: Sorry if you feel the US law is paramount, but I'm afraid in this instance it isn't. It is bound to higher things and each country that follows the international Convention on copyright has more or less the same provisions in their own Copyright laws as would the US. Doddie responds: I don't FEEL the U.S. law is paramount it simply is in this case, as WB, JKR and Camp challenged the printing of the Lexicon via U.S. courts..because the Lexicon was being printed in the United States by a US company why would anyone argue any other law besides U.S. Law in a U.S. court?!? For this battle anyhow..not that they will not fight it in every arena they feel the need to. Doddie wrote: Given the other books published over the years...I do not think JKR's case will prevail.. Goddlefrood responded: Care to expand on that? Precedent and legal references, s'il vous plait. Doddie again: I only mean that there have been others, with websites who have published books based upon JKR's text with their opinions, characters, settings and predictions listed...was it only said books "flawed" predictions that allowed them to be printed, or perhaps the college professor's books published who taught/teach HP classes that also require the purchase of the entire series in addition to their coursework?!? Many of these books(textbooks, predictions, analysis etc.. contained incomplete info...as it was so early in the series...the Lexicon made great strides to update their info. with each book..In the U.S. no challenge=legal precedent. (hence the plaintiffs in said current copright suit did not file complaints against the website in any civil court action..or, if they did...some sort of agreement was met that did not include book publishing at the time, otherwise, there would be no current case. Given the number of books publised about the HP series pre-lawsuit, I wonder if; SVA had published his Lexicon post HBP, which may have included false/inaccurate predictions..I do not think WB would have pursued legal action. I wonder if JKR and WB thought it was okay only if some portion of the book was "wrong" in some way?!?(quite a bit of nerve given JKR's mastery of maths(I still don't know how she could possible sort this out in her own encyclopedia--one of the reasons I would buy her encyclopedia alone...I would assume all could be proven wrong even now, who knows the age of Arthur and Molly? Bill and Charlie???) The lexicon at least addressed/s the "maths" issues in a way that JKR never had/has... I'd argue that the reason WB/JKR fought the battle on U.S. territory vs. UK or any other countries territory was for economic reasons(the "Book Lexicon's" perceived greatest audience)..United States lawsuit means United States laws...I'm sure wb/JKR camps will file lawsuits in other countries trying to publish/sell the published Lexicon in other languages/countries if they feel is necessary.. This case may have been different if every book, or for that matter most books, printed about the HP novels had been challenged...but they were not..and some of them have been quite awful(aren't there a couple that site or list Lexicon as a source??)..There may be more..but that's not on record at this time, during the current U.S. lawsuit, which was filed under U.S. law.. One country's trial at a time please...(and there have been other countries and other trials...most deal with illegal translations/publications/distributions...) DD, (--who really doesn't understand why they'd allow the website all these years, yet not a book based predominantly upon a previously web-based publication.) publication.....) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 10:25:25 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:25:25 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Goddlefrood previously: > Sorry if you feel the US law is paramount, but I'm afraid in > this instance it isn't. It is bound to higher things and each > country that follows the international Convention on copyright > has more or less the same provisions in their own Copyright > laws as would the US. > Doddie responded: > I don't FEEL the U.S. law is paramount it simply is in this > case, as WB, JKR and Camp challenged the printing of the > Lexicon via U.S. courts..because the Lexicon was being printed > in the United States by a US company why would anyone argue > any other law besides U.S. Law in a U.S. court?!? Goddlefrood: International Conventions are, quite simply, superior to ANY signatory country's local law. That's what I mean by being bound to higher things. I'm not trying to denigrate the US system in any way, simply telling it like it is. If it were argued otherwise then the US would be a rogue state, and it isn't. Any previously published materials linked to the HP books has (i) not been taken to task even if infringing and (ii) may have sought and obtained permission to use any copyrighted material. The blurb at the front should tell one which. In the instance of permission being obtained the information would be on the, well, information page. In the instance of permission not having been obtained some kind of disclaimer would usually appear; even often in non-infringing works. It makes sense to me anyway. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36224 > Carol: > BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC > WORKS (Paris Text 1971) > Nothing about paraphrasing, which apparently doesn't count > as "copying" for the purposes of the Berne Convention. Goddlefrood: That'd be covered by the, admittedly vague, Article 12: Right of Adaptation, Arrangement and Other Alteration 'Authors of literary or artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works.' It then becomes a matter for interpretation for any Judicial body that might ponder what is included by the words 'and other alterations'. It's certainly broad enough to arguably include paraphrasing. The full Convention is here: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html Article 2 (5) may also be of especial interest to some (it's pertinent to Encyclopaedias). From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 10:45:15 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:45:15 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: That case and that book - "Copy" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4814593B.9070007@yahoo.com> bboyminn: > WB's attorney's are continually trying to force the word > 'copy' into questions in any and all contexts Alla: > Well, yes to support one's argument that defendants > copied, it is helpful to try to make defendant's > witnesses to admit that they actually...copied. I think (though not meaning to speak for Steve on this) that his comment was at least partially following on from Carol's comment about requesting clarification of the word "copying". Steve, I think, is echoing Carol's concern that the WB lawyers are trying to catch the defendants in a duplicitous bait-and-switch ambiguity around the word "copy". P: Defendant has already admitted infringing. D: No I didn't. I said "copy". P: "Copy" means "infringe". I thought you knew. I tend to lean toward your side on this -- it's the cross's job to try to get the defendant to admit guilt. It just sometimes comes across as, well, a bit nasty and, umm, deceptive. In any case, I'm sure the judge is not fooled, though I doubt the plaintiffs' case was damaged. CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 10:48:24 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:48:24 +0800 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: That case and that book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <481459F8.7010206@yahoo.com> CJ: > Hmm? Do you mean you're of the opinion that the "fictional facts" > distinction is actually a BINDING precedent? I can't see where it's > been used as precedent at all, let alone considered as binding. Alla: > I do not believe that you can say that any PART of the case is > separate precedent, the WHOLE case is a precedent. Does it make > sense? But this was my intent -- though I admit I didn't make it clear -- with my earlier reference to Posner's criticism of Castle Rock. That criticism came in the Beanie Baby case. "The holding seems to rest in part, and very dubiously we must say, on the court's judgment that the book was frivolous." It was in the very same case that I found my one and only explicit reference to the Castle Rock "fictional facts" distinction: "The court said that "each 'fact' tested by The SAT is in reality fictitious expression created by Seinfeld's authors. ... A similar judgment might be possible here." This strongly suggests to me that, for Posner at least, court decisions are not monolithic beasties, and judges do (or at least this judge does) feel free to slice and dice their way through them. Posner, at the least, felt free to critize the main holding of Castle Rock while accepting the "fictional facts" distinction and even considering (though ultimately rejecting) applying it in the Beanie Baby case. CJ: > you may refer to me either as CJ or Kaiwen. Lee is my Chinese surname > ... And don't anyone even THINK about apologizing. Alla: > Eh, sorry? :) For what? Making the obvious assumption? Not a problem :-) CJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 13:14:29 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:14:29 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: <481459F8.7010206@yahoo.com> Message-ID: CJ: But this was my intent -- though I admit I didn't make it clear -- with my earlier reference to Posner's criticism of Castle Rock. That criticism came in the Beanie Baby case. "The holding seems to rest in part, and very dubiously we must say, on the court's judgment that the book was frivolous." It was in the very same case that I found my one and only explicit reference to the Castle Rock "fictional facts" distinction: "The court said that "each 'fact' tested by The SAT is in reality fictitious expression created by Seinfeld's authors. ... A similar judgment might be possible here." This strongly suggests to me that, for Posner at least, court decisions are not monolithic beasties, and judges do (or at least this judge does) feel free to slice and dice their way through them. Posner, at the least, felt free to critize the main holding of Castle Rock while accepting the "fictional facts" distinction and even considering (though ultimately rejecting) applying it in the Beanie Baby case. Alla: Okay, I guess I was not clear after all. Sorry :) Yes, of course judges are free to cite the case for any proposition they choose. But what judge is doing here, he is DISTINGUISHING the case he is deciding from Castle Rock on the fact and thus refuses to follow their reasoning. That is totally judge's prerrogative to say that he believes the case which is in front of him is DIFFERENT for whatever reasons and refuse to follow it, he just better be able to explain it well. It is also the prerrogative of judges of the court that decided Castle Rock to say one day - we have SAME case on the facts and law here as Castle rock, but we reverse ourselves, we think Castle rock is no good no more. BOOM, done. Now, you were saying that fictional facts part was not cited anywhere except in this case and even here court refused to follow it. That may very well be true, I don;t know. As I said I skimmed 10 or twelve case out of 750 and did not have time or desire to do more. What I am saying that as long as Castle Rock is good law it is simply IRRELEVANT if part of the reasoning was not cited in any cases. Since the WHOLE CASE is good law, any judge is free to cite it for ANY proposition he so chooses and if judge Patterson wishes to adopt this reasoning he can do so. By the same tocken the fact that judge refused to follow PART of the case means nothing for new decisions. He distinguished the case, but whole case is still good law. Alla From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 27 15:40:19 2008 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 27 Apr 2008 15:40:19 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/27/2008, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1209310819.38.34626.m46@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 27, 2008 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 15:46:55 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:46:55 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Goddlefrood: > > International Conventions are, quite simply, superior to ANY > signatory country's local law. That's what I mean by being > bound to higher things. I'm not trying to denigrate the US > system in any way, simply telling it like it is. If it were > argued otherwise then the US would be a rogue state, and it > isn't. > > Alla: That is very true of course, but that reminds me that I have a question about it, please bear with me - International law was again one class in law school and then almost no exposure except newspapers. How effective do you think in general the mechanism of enforcement of whatever International court of copyright (I am not even sure if such court exists, whatever is the name of the body that decides international appeals in that area) decides, had the parties choose to take the case there. Do you know what I am getting at? Yes of course countries who signed the convention in whatever area of law HAD BETTER be sure that their law is in accordance ( that is why I guess conventions are often vague and general to give enough room for country specific law to be in compliance and still country specific enough), but say JKR or RDR decides to take their case there and they win there. Who will be enforcing it? Say RDR is forbidden from publishing by US court and International court will say no, go ahead. What mechanism do they have to enforce it? I remember reading the case about woman being either unlawfully fired in Ukraine or something similar ( do not remember what it was even) and she decides to appeal to European court of human rights and I was sadly shaking my head and thinking - okay, so they will say she will be reinstated or something, what next? Employer in Ukraine will choose to honor this decision? No way in my opinion, it will be - whatever, just piece of paper IMO. Thanks :) Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Apr 27 16:53:26 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:53:26 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes Message-ID: For something different and in a lighter vein, MAD Magazine is doing a parody of HP. Now that Dumbledore has come out of the closet, other children's book characters are revealing secrets about themselves. Clifford, Berenstain Bears, etc. Some are really funny, some are in poor taste. But it'll get a chuckle. Potioncat From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 27 17:40:24 2008 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 27 Apr 2008 17:40:24 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/27/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1209318024.12.5755.m42@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 27, 2008 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 18:06:49 2008 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:06:49 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" wrote: Okay, I'll be heroic and try to explain this all, although I bet it's been covered before. > Doddie again: > > I only mean that there have been others, with websites who have > published books based upon JKR's text with their opinions, > characters, settings and predictions listed...was it only said > books "flawed" predictions that allowed them to be printed, or > perhaps the college professor's books published who taught/teach HP > classes that also require the purchase of the entire series in > addition to their coursework?!? It's because these books were primarily things like opinions and analysis, where JKR's works and characters and plots were cited, but then the bulk of the text of the book was analysis, conjecture, discussion. That's perfectly allowable, as long as you don't take more than what you need from the original. This is one thing that Fair Use protects, the right to engage in analysis of works that the author might not approve of or agree with. Emily Blumsack's declaration here discusses many of the other books which the defense cited, and explains the plaintiff's reasoning for why those were okay. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/blumsackfeb27.pdf > In the U.S. no challenge=legal precedent. (hence the plaintiffs in > said current copright suit did not file complaints against the > website in any civil court action..or, if they did...some sort of > agreement was met that did not include book publishing at the time, > otherwise, there would be no current case. You will also notice that there are things listed that were *not* okay, and action was taken/things worked out. In addition, copyright does not work on the principle that trademark does, where if you do not vigorously defend your rights to the trademark than you lose them. > DD, > (--who really doesn't understand why they'd allow the website all > these years, yet not a book based predominantly upon a previously > web-based publication.) The website was a collective fanwork and not for profit; the book is a commercial venture. It took a while to even figure out what exactly from the website was going to BE in the book, thanks to RDR's confusing statements (and the comment to JKR's people to "just hit print".) I can tell you a lot of people who had contributed essays to the website were not amused by the idea that they would be included in the book, without having been asked. The copyright holder has the prerogative to pursue charges of copyright violation or to let them fly--I'm unsure about how much consistency is required. But there is a history here of going after publications which they considered violating--and letting many others go by. David Langford, who did "The End of Harry Potter?", made comments that CLLA was all "sweetness and light" to work with: http://news.ansible.co.uk/a248.html "That J.K. Rowling/Warner Bros lawsuit against RDR Books, prospective publishers of a condensed print version of Steve Vander Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon website, chugs on remorselessly. Even my name was bandied in the legal filings, with RDR citing my own HP exegesis as one of six works which didn't get sued despite 'especially striking similarities to the Lexicon in both format and content'. I can't see the likeness myself, and neither can JKR/WB, whose counter-filing agrees that the Langford epic wasn't marketed as 'an encyclopedia or guide'. I also heard from RDR, asking how I got away with it -- that is, whether JKR/WB had been horrid to me. In fact, once Gollancz had let the author's agents see early proofs, all was sweetness and light." I hope this is helpful. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 18:53:40 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:53:40 -0000 Subject: That case and that book - "Copy" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > Well, yes to support one's argument that defendants copied, it is > helpful to try to make defendant's witnesses to admit that they > actually...copied. > > I mean, is there something wrong with this maneuver, as long as it > seeks to elicit something that plaintiffs allege in good faith > defendants did? Carol responds: "Copy" as generally used means copied verbatim, as in photocopied, or as in Ron and Harry copied Hermione's essays. The term is not generally used to mean "quoted passages from" unless those passages are not enclosed in quotation marks or in block format, especially when the source is cited. If I'm writing an essay on Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" and I quote stanzas from the poem to support or illustrate my points, would any lawyer in his right mind say that I "copied" Shelley's poem? I certainly hope not. Even if I paraphrased one of his prose essays, say "On Love," not picking up his exact phrasing and making it clear that the ideas were Shelley's, not mine (in contrast to my interpretation, which I would clearly distinguish from his words), no lawyer familiar with the fair use doctrine would use the term "copying" with reference to what I was doing. The only distinction between Steve V's quoting and copying and mine is that his book does not clearly fall under literary criticism, so it requires a great deal of summary and synthesis as opposed to analysis. But a quotation is still a quotation and a paraphrase is still a paraphrase, and neither of them is copying unless the paraphrase is too close to the original wording and unacknowledged. JKR's lawyers are using a term, "copying," that suggests plagiarism. If they mean "quoted" (an/or closely paraphrased), that's what they should say. But they don't say that because "quoted" has no connotations of plagiarism or cheating. No wonder Steve V. and Rapaport don't want to state that that's what the book is doing. And they are quite correct. *Of course* the book uses quotations and paraphrases, just as it uses summary and synthesis, along with some outside materials, common knowledge, and commentary. And, of course, by its very nature, it would require reasonably large amounts of the original text. But for the lawyers, or JKR herself, to imply that Steve V. *copied* JKR's books as her characters copy each other's homework is just ridiculous. Carol, hoping that the judge sees through this shoddy tactic From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 19:09:28 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:09:28 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: potioncat wrote: > > For something different and in a lighter vein, MAD Magazine is doing a parody of HP. Now that Dumbledore has come out of the closet, other children's book characters are revealing secrets about themselves. Clifford, Berenstain Bears, etc. Some are really funny, some are in poor taste. But it'll get a chuckle. > Carol responds: Since the British put their cups in dressers and their dresses in cupboards, maybe the expression should be "coming out of the cupboard"? Carol, who puts her cups in the cupboard and her dresses (what few she owns) in the closet, with the dresser reserved for underwear, socks, and nightgowns) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Apr 27 19:21:54 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:21:54 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > Since the British put their cups in dressers and their dresses in > cupboards, maybe the expression should be "coming out of the cupboard"? > > Carol, who puts her cups in the cupboard and her dresses (what few she > owns) in the closet, with the dresser reserved for underwear, socks, > and nightgowns) Potioncat: And do you keep trousers in a chest of drawers? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 27 19:42:41 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:42:41 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Carol responds: > > > > Since the British put their cups in dressers and their dresses in > > cupboards, maybe the expression should be "coming out of the > cupboard"? > > > > Carol, who puts her cups in the cupboard and her dresses (what few she > > owns) in the closet, with the dresser reserved for underwear, socks, > > and nightgowns) > > > Potioncat: > And do you keep trousers in a chest of drawers? Geoff: Of course not; how silly. Obviously, you keep underwear and knickers in a chest of drawers. :-)) I don't know how serious you are being, Carol, but in UK speak, dresses, shirts and trousers. would go in the wardrobe while socks, underwear and small items would go in drawers. The word "dresser" is a bit old-hat. It might be used if you possess something like a Welsh dresser but they are very out of fashion with modern kitchens having wall-hung cupboards. Closet is, surprisingly, somewhat confined in its use to something you come out of..... Well, not necessarily *you* but you know what I mean. Off at a tangent, I have been amused several times recently when reading material from across the "pond" to find references to the "parlour" being made. This, to English eyes, is very Victorian and labels its user as being incredibly old-fashioned. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Apr 27 20:06:45 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:06:45 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > I don't know how serious you are being, Carol, but in UK > speak, dresses, shirts and trousers. would go in the wardrobe > while socks, underwear and small items would go in drawers. Potioncat: In Colonial America, houses were built without closets because taxes on houses were determined by the number of rooms; closets counted as rooms. Homes now have closets for each bedroom. Is that true in England as well, or do bedrooms generally have a piece of furniture (wardrobe) for hanging dresses, shirts and trousers? Geoff: > The word "dresser" is a bit old-hat. It might be used if you > possess something like a Welsh dresser but they are very > out of fashion with modern kitchens having wall-hung > cupboards. Potioncat: What is a Welsh dresser? Is it like a Wilson cabinet? (Sort of a china cabinet.) While we don't have dressers in kitchens, we do have them in bedrooms. In fact, I don't ever hear chest of drawers anymore. I'm not sure what the difference is between a dresser, a chest of drawers and a bureau, but I'm not especially domestic. We had a Bureau of Medicine in the U.S Navy, but it had nothing to do with storing medications. Geoff: Closet is, surprisingly, somewhat confined in > its use to something you come out of..... Well, not necessarily > *you* but you know what I mean. Potioncat: So the phrase is the same? (MAD Magazine adds a Wardrobe to their series of jokes based on DD, hence the title of the post.) > Geoff: > Off at a tangent, I have been amused several times recently > when reading material from across the "pond" to find > references to the "parlour" being made. This, to English eyes, > is very Victorian and labels its user as being incredibly > old-fashioned. Potioncat: It is here as well. More modern would be the living room. The family was often banned from going there because it was for company. I don't think houses have them any more. (Living rooms, not company.) From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 27 20:58:05 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:58:05 -0000 Subject: copying/quoting/Wikipedia/cross-examination ... & a whole new topic, drawers Message-ID: Lee Storm wrote in : << And, as an aside, I've looked at almost 200 articles which all seem to have the same text within them. Hmm--who was *really* the originator? >> When you find the same article in hundreds of newspapers, it probably came from a wire service, and should be bylined 'AP -' or 'Reuters -' or 'Press Trust of India - ' or whatever. Once I glanced through a copy of L.A. DAILY NEWS and found that all its non-local articles said 'from the New York TIMES' at the bottom. There's no infringement because the wire services (and apparently the NYT) are in the *business* of providing articles to be published by their paying subscribers. The subscribers chop off the bottom of the article to save paper, in some cases running only the first paragraph of a very long article. In middle school, we were taught that journalists must write in an 'inverse pyramid' form, with the most important thing in the first sentence, the second most important thing in the second sentence, and so on, because papers have always cut from the bottom up rather than by actually reading the material. So the wire services know very well that this is going to happen to their articles, so I don't suppose their feelings are hurt by it. But my feelings have been hurt on their behalf sometimes when I have seen some rag print the first paragraph of a story plus one sentence of their own, thus giving the impression that the story was written by an ignorant idiot, and then I went on-line and read the whole wire service article and it was excellent and admirable. One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this list's extensive discussion of copyright and plagiarism is quoting part of a person's statement, with citation, in such a way as to make the person look like an idiot. I think that's more hurtful to the victim and, if intentional, more evil of the perpetrator, than the so-called plagiarism of -- I'm too out of touch with modern culture to use a non-obsolete example -- saying 'Where's the beef?' without saying 'In the words of the TV commercial'. Carol wrote in : << Are not the spoo "facts" the property of the series' creator? Is Wikipedia not infringing his copyright merely by retelling them? >> I'm sure Wikipedia is full of infringements of copyrights, and that they don't cost the copyright owners any money. The only way that reading about Spoo in Wikipedia would prevent a person from buying B5 DVDs is if the person had never been inclined to buy them in the first place. A person looks up Spoo because either they read the word somewhere and want to know what it is, or maybe they're a fan who is trying to explain Spoo to a Muggle. No decent person would sue Wikipedia. There was that man who sued Wikipedia because an article said he was one of the suspected conspirators in the JFK assassination. That is all I know about him, and all I need to know about him to know that he is not a decent person. Problems with Wikipedia (that it defames you, or even publishes your trade secret) should be dealt with through Wikipedia's mechanisms. Having a problem with Wikipedia that they infringe your copyright should be dealt with by authorizing them to use your copyrighted material with an acknowledgment. You can insert the acknowledgment yourself. Alla wrote in : << But no amount of forceful cross-examination will make witness say something that witness did not DO. >> Unfortunately, that's not always true. As you probably know, many children have been trained to always agree with anything said by an angry authority figure (and a forceful adult seems like an angry authority figure) because contradicting them will earn a spanking or being sent to bed without supper or whatever punishments are used nowadays, either for 'lying' or for disrespecting an adult. I know you only meant cross-examination of adults, but many adults can be intimidated as easily as children into agreeing with anything said by a scary person in a suit. I believe this is especially true of people with some kinds of mental retardation or mental illness. But, you know, extreme timidity is not generally viewed as a mental illness. And I'm pretty sure, that I, at least, can be confused into saying something that isn't true. I wish I could remember some specific examples, but all I remember is having had to say to an intimidating boss, 'no... let me start over'. Y'know, like, the reason I didn't phone the Help Desk is the first I knew of the problem was when the Help Desk phoned me. Potioncat wrote in : << And do you keep trousers in a chest of drawers? >> I grinned at Carol's comment, but yours reminded me of an embarrassing moment. A male friend had hidden my Slinky in his apartment and I was searching for it. While I was looking in all the drawers of his dresser, a third party saw me and (jokingly) accused me of looking at Dan's underwear. "I'm not looking at his underwear, I'm just searching his drawers." Oops! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 21:08:43 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:08:43 -0000 Subject: copying/quoting/Wikipedia/cross-examination ... & a whole new topic, drawers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote in : << But no amount of forceful cross-examination will make witness say something that witness did not DO. >> Catlady: Unfortunately, that's not always true. I know you only meant cross-examination of adults, but many adults can be intimidated as easily as children into agreeing with anything said by a scary person in a suit. I believe this is especially true of people with some kinds of mental retardation or mental illness. But, you know, extreme timidity is not generally viewed as a mental illness. Alla: If you believe that, you believe that there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. And yes of course I mean cross-examination of the adults. Judges will often talk to kids one on one in family law cases for example. But I do want to say one thing - lawyer who is arguing something without genuinely believing it and attacking witness on the stand just for the sake of harrassing a witness and hoping that maybe witness will say something that will help the case is not an ethical lawyer. The thing is I see zero proof that JKR's lawyers acted unethically in any way shape or form. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 22:01:46 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:01:46 -0000 Subject: That case and that book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Nora: The copyright holder has the prerogative to pursue charges of copyright violation or to let them fly--I'm unsure about how much consistency is required. But there is a history here of going after publications which they considered violating--and letting many others go by. David Langford, who did "The End of Harry Potter?", made comments that CLLA was all "sweetness and light" to work with: http://news.ansible.co.uk/a248.html "That J.K. Rowling/Warner Bros lawsuit against RDR Books, prospective publishers of a condensed print version of Steve Vander Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon website, chugs on remorselessly. Even my name was bandied in the legal filings, with RDR citing my own HP exegesis as one of six works which didn't get sued despite 'especially striking similarities to the Lexicon in both format and content'. I can't see the likeness myself, and neither can JKR/WB, whose counter-filing agrees that the Langford epic wasn't marketed as 'an encyclopedia or guide'. I also heard from RDR, asking how I got away with it -- that is, whether JKR/WB had been horrid to me. In fact, once Gollancz had let the author's agents see early proofs, all was sweetness and light." I hope this is helpful. Alla: Oh dear. I used to have this book ( by David Langford I mean), gave it to friend at work. It is not it is not it is NOT like Lexicon, not even close. And isn't it funny how RDR asked him how he could get away with it? Get away with what, eh? Have you even read the book RDR people? But he offers a good recipe it seems, just be NICE to the author's agent and SHOW them the book. Although, yes, yes I know that it would have been likely irrelevant, since his book is theorising on what happens, but still be nice often seems to work. Was JKR's lawyer screaming at Mr. Rapaport before or AFTER he was ignoring their e-mails and saying he had family tragedy while he continued to actively market the book. Oy. No, I do not condone screaming, but I can certainly understand when one screams after being lied to in such blatant manner. And, um, yes some books they forced off the market ( that's not to you Nora of course, just in general) - they thought the books are infringing so they took action, I would think. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 27 22:05:50 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:05:50 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Geoff: > > I don't know how serious you are being, Carol, but in UK > > speak, dresses, shirts and trousers. would go in the wardrobe > > while socks, underwear and small items would go in drawers. > > > Potioncat: > In Colonial America, houses were built without closets because taxes > on houses were determined by the number of rooms; closets counted as > rooms. Homes now have closets for each bedroom. Is that true in > England as well, or do bedrooms generally have a piece of furniture > (wardrobe) for hanging dresses, shirts and trousers? Geoff: Ah. Light is dawning I think. Your closet appears to be a UK built-in wardrobe. > Geoff: > > The word "dresser" is a bit old-hat. It might be used if you > > possess something like a Welsh dresser but they are very > > out of fashion with modern kitchens having wall-hung > > cupboards. > > Potioncat: > What is a Welsh dresser? Is it like a Wilson cabinet? (Sort of a > china cabinet.) > > While we don't have dressers in kitchens, we do have them in > bedrooms. In fact, I don't ever hear chest of drawers anymore. I'm > not sure what the difference is between a dresser, a chest of drawers > and a bureau, but I'm not especially domestic. Geoff: Hm. A chest of drawers is a very common piece of furniture here. Sometimes on short legs, sometimes down to floor level and most often three levels of drawers, one level possibly having two half-width drawers. If you've got a dresser in your bedroom, we will probably have a dressing table. A dresser is an older piece of kitchen or dining-room furniture. the lower half will probably have a couple of wide cupboards to store bottles or glassware with a flat top for placing items on but backed by open shelving on which plates etc. will be stacked in such a way that they can be seen and may be the best crockery or even a family dining service on display. A Welsh dresser is just a particular style which is popular for folk who have decided to have a"period" style kitchen. A bureau to us is a high desk with a drop-down leaf which acts as a writing area and which, when closed, covers shelving with writing paper, pens, stamps und so weiter. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 22:44:17 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:44:17 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > Since the British put their cups in dressers and their dresses > in cupboards, maybe the expression should be "coming out of the > cupboard"? Goddlefrood: No we don't. Most use a cupboard for cups and a wardrobe for clothes. Whatever gave you a contrary idea? From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 23:02:20 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:02:20 -0000 Subject: International / European Law (Was Re: That case and that book) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > How effective do you think in general the mechanism of > enforcement of whatever International court of copyright > (I am not even sure if such court exists, whatever is the > name of the body that decides international appeals in that > area) decides, had the parties choose to take the case there. Goddlefrood: Well, the problem is, it's up to the parties to a copyright dispute to choose where to refer such disputes. The Berne Convention indicates that ALL parties to a dispute must be in agreement to refer such to the International Court of Justice. Thus, if they do agree to have it referred there, then they must also agree to abide by that Court's decision. On that basis, it would be highly effective; but then should a losing party renege on its agreement to abide by the decision the usual process of registration of any decision in the Country where that decision needs enforcing would have to be gone through before any enforcement could take place. I know of no instance where a decision of the ICJ has been ignored for a Copyright case. Then again, I know of no case that has been referred there. Parties to the Convention state this: 'The (signatory party) takes the position that for any dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice for its decision, the agreement of all the Parties to the dispute shall be necessary in each individual case.' > Alla: > I remember reading the case about woman being either unlawfully > fired in Ukraine or something similar ( do not remember what it > was even) and she decides to appeal to European court of human > rights and I was sadly shaking my head and thinking - okay, so > they will say she will be reinstated or something, what next? > Employer in Ukraine will choose to honor this decision? No way > in my opinion, it will be - whatever, just piece of paper IMO. Goddlefrood: The EC would ultimately take steps against the Ukraine if the decision of the ECHR were not complied with. The employer should be compelled by the Ukraine authorities to comply, at least that's what should happen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 23:58:09 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:58:09 -0000 Subject: Thoughts from a Different Perspective - Day THREE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am again reading the transcripts of the DAY THREE testimony. This is testimony by expert witnesses. I thought the expert witness for RDR did a good job, but of course we must acknowledge that experts for the offense and defense are going to be highly biased. So, I'm trying to take that into consideration. But the expert witness, in my opinion, out and out lied to the court, though I don't think the court was aware of it. In earlier testimony Steve Vander Ark (SteveV) said that he only cited down to the book and chapter because there were so many different editions of the books that the actual page numbers could be easily determined. The JKR/WB expert witness said this - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday3.txt Pg 593-597 [The witness has made statements about the page numbers not being different, and even if they were, there is a standard citation format for dealing with that. The JUDGE in now questioning the witness on that issue.] THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. THE WITNESS: Sure. THE COURT: Mr. Vander Ark says that the various editions of the book have different paginations; and that, therefore, the only practical way for use by people who use different editions was to cite chapters and not cite pages because a lot of people find that incorrect. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Is he right in that or is he -- THE WITNESS: No, he's not right in that. THE COURT: Why not? THE WITNESS: Perhaps it's easiest to explain by giving an example. I work on the works of James Joyce. And James Joyce exists, if we were simply to limit ourselves to England and America, in very different texts in England and America. Common practice is to give a letter or in this case you would need two or three letters or an italics or marking in some way to say English edition, so the letter E, page 110, or in America, A, page 132. It's very, very simple. It's done all the time to help in exactly these kinds of situations to give a reader who has that kind of text. THE COURT: So are there only two different editions, one in America and one in England? THE WITNESS: No there are not. THE COURT: Or are there paperbacks and hardcovers and what have you? THE WITNESS: There are paperbacks and hardcovers. But what is often the case with these books is that you have at the back a table which allows you to tell the difference roughly in pagination between the two. So citing -- it's absolutely common practice to give -- well, it's not simply common practice, it's the standard; you would give a page number, not a chapter reference. THE COURT: I understand that. But the question I was raising is whether he has somewhat of a good excuse, in view of the number of different editions and different formats. THE WITNESS: There are lots of different editions and different formats. It's also generally the case that you would refer to -- Ms. Rowling writes in English, and I do realize that these books have been translated in many, many, many languages. But the text in which most readers would be referring would be the English editions in either England or America. So it wouldn't be difficult -- THE COURT: I'm not talking about foreign editions; I'm not talking about editions in other languages. I'm talking about editions in England and in America or Canada, Australia; English-speaking countries. THE WITNESS: Certainly in England, which are the books that I -- the Potter books that I have and that I've read. ***The hardback and paperback editions have the same pagination; so there's not that kind of splitting.*** So you really would be using two or you would cite two, as is also standard practice. I am citing to this -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - It is possible that the witness is testifying 'to the best of his knowledge', but considering he is an expert witness, I would think he would make an effort to have full or at least reasonable knowledge. Especially when this is a big issue being brought up by WB's lawyers, though, it is possible that they preferred that he not know. The British and American editions do not have the same pagination because they do not have the same word count. Further, they are printed on different size paper and in different sized typeface, and with different sized margins, and with and without illustrations. Further, at least in the USA, the paperbacks are available in two forms. One a very small compact paperback with small pages, small print, and tight margins. The other is a more medium size format. These do not have the same pagination by a long shot. If this is also true in Britain, Canada, and Australia then each citation would be quite long and confusing. (PS32, CS95, DH132) [all made up] Would now become - (PS-AH32:AS1-36:AS2-40:BCH39:BCS1-33:BCS2-39:AuH36:AuS1-34:AuS2-38... and that only covers the first PS32 entry, now multiply that by the CS95, and DH132 entries, and it indeed would be very confusing. [A = USA; BC = Britain/Canada; Au = Australia; H = hardcover, S1 = soft cover variation 1, S2 = soft cover variation 2] But as SteveV points out, the chapter numbers are a common point of reference between all editions. There is more to this interchange, but it is clear, whether intentionally or not, the witness is misleading the court. I haven't reach the part when RDR lawyer get to cross examine yet, let's hope they understand better that this guy does. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From n2fgc at arrl.net Mon Apr 28 00:17:59 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:17:59 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001e01c8a8c5$509b5540$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Goddlefrood]: | No we don't. Most use a cupboard for cups and a wardrobe for | clothes. Whatever gave you a contrary idea? [Lee]: Perhaps it's the use of the term "Airing Cupboard" in OOTP which, I was under the impression, refers to a linen closet in US-Speak. So, it might follow that clothes go into a cupboard which might be a built-in wardrobe which means "Closet" in American houses. Do dat make sense? And Geoff, I believe, said that our "Dresser" in the bedroom would be a "Dressing table" in the UK. Well, we do have dressing tables which some call a "Vanity" which is a table top supported by drawers or a small cabinet or cupboard on one or both sides and has a mirror at the back of it, sometimes with lights on the mirror...sort of like a desk-styled thing. Cheers, Lee :-) (Who still wants to know how the word "Bureau" came to mean that in which we place clothing.) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 01:00:02 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:00:02 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: <001e01c8a8c5$509b5540$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: > [Lee]: > Perhaps it's the use of the term "Airing Cupboard" in OOTP which, > I was under the impression, refers to a linen closet in US-Speak. > So, it might follow that clothes go into a cupboard which might > be a built-in wardrobe which means "Closet" in American houses. > Do dat make sense? Goddlefrood: Some, but an airing cupbaord is usually only used for bedclothes and towels. And I won't get into water closets just yet ;-) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 28 01:41:30 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:41:30 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > [Lee]: > > Perhaps it's the use of the term "Airing Cupboard" in OOTP which, > > I was under the impression, refers to a linen closet in US-Speak. > > So, it might follow that clothes go into a cupboard which might > > be a built-in wardrobe which means "Closet" in American houses. > > > Do dat make sense? > > Goddlefrood: > > Some, but an airing cupbaord is usually only used for bedclothes > and towels. And I won't get into water closets just yet ;-) Magpie: Bedclothes and towels are what you find in a linen closet as well. -m (who thinks a dresser would also be called a chest of drawers, but usually calls it a dresser.) From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 28 01:50:04 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:50:04 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > > > Since the British put their cups in dressers and their dresses > > in cupboards, maybe the expression should be "coming out of the > > cupboard"? > > Goddlefrood: > > No we don't. Most use a cupboard for cups and a wardrobe for > clothes. Whatever gave you a contrary idea? > I seem to recall Molly taking dishes from the dresser in the kitchen of 12 Grimmauld Place soon after Harry arrives there. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 02:06:00 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:06:00 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Catlady: > I seem to recall Molly taking dishes from the dresser in the > kitchen of 12 Grimmauld Place soon after Harry arrives there. Goddlefrood: Geoff's already expanded on what a Welsh dresser is. I would add that while it is a familiar piece of furniture it is not all that common. If my internal US - UK conversion is working correctly I think it would be known as a tallboy there. Usually Brits put cups in cupboard (I did use most in the earlier comment) and clothes in wardrobes. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 28 02:53:01 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:53:01 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > Geoff's already expanded on what a Welsh dresser is. I would add > that while it is a familiar piece of furniture it is not all that > common. If my internal US - UK conversion is working correctly I > think it would be known as a tallboy there. Hey, is the word 'Welsh dresser' some kind of ethnic joke like 'Welsh rabbit'? From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 03:33:16 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:33:16 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Catlady: > Hey, is the word 'Welsh dresser' some kind of ethnic joke like > 'Welsh rabbit'? Goddlefrood: Not that I know of, and it's rarebit, although I've seen the rabbit variant quite often. It's certainly not in the same category as a Dutch Uncle or a French Letter anyway. From kking0731 at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 03:40:33 2008 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:40:33 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Geoff: Hm. A chest of drawers is a very common piece of furniture here. Sometimes on short legs, sometimes down to floor level and most often three levels of drawers, one level possibly having two half-width drawers. Snow: I have one of those and it has skeleton key holes in each drawer. The matching piece is taller with two half drawers on top and four drawers underneath. Geoff: If you've got a dresser in your bedroom, we will probably have a dressing table. A dresser is an older piece of kitchen or dining-room furniture. the lower half will probably have a couple of wide cupboards to store bottles or glassware with a flat top for placing items on but backed by open shelving on which plates etc. will be stacked in such a way that they can be seen and may be the best crockery or even a family dining service on display. Snow: Thirty plus years ago I lived in an older house (apartment for me) that had a room, straight off the kitchen, with a built-in china cupboard (at least that's what I took it as). There were three dresser drawers on the bottom and what looked like a china cupboard on top without the glass and doors but the same room and style (to place your dishes [actual wooden slots to place the dishware]). Geoff: A Welsh dresser is just a particular style which is popular for folk who have decided to have a"period" style kitchen. A bureau to us is a high desk with a drop-down leaf which acts as a writing area and which, when closed, covers shelving with writing paper, pens, stamps und so weiter. Snow: I also have a bureau according to your description, which is over 100 years old, although I would call it an old fashioned writing desk. The desk, I have, has four thin legs, the desktop is slanted but lifts up (almost like an old fashioned kids school desk, but not as deep) for supplies. It also has a very large skinny drawer underneath. You could not, however, sit at this desk with a common place chair because the desk would be too high. From donnawonna at att.net Mon Apr 28 04:13:31 2008 From: donnawonna at att.net (Donna) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:13:31 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Closets and Wardrobes References: Message-ID: <48154EEB.000009.00496@LIFESAVER> Donna: I was raised to call a low bureau with a mirror a "dresser". I have 2 antique "dressers", 1 with 2 full width drawers (with the skeleton key holes) and 2 1/2 width drawers and large mirror on top, and the other one is like a desk with a table top, 3 drawers on each side, an opening for a stool or chair, a "lap drawer", and a large oval mirror on top. If you go to a furniture store and ask for a "dresser" that is what you will be shown. My chest of drawers is as Geoff described. My "wardrobe" is a tall cabinet with double doors, a shelf on the bottom, and a wooden bar for hanging clothing on. Geoff: Hm. A chest of drawers is a very common piece of furniture here. Sometimes on short legs, sometimes down to floor level and most often three levels of drawers, one level possibly having two half-width drawers. Snow: I have one of those and it has skeleton key holes in each drawer. The matching piece is taller with two half drawers on top and four drawers underneath. Geoff: If you've got a dresser in your bedroom, we will probably have a dressing table. A dresser is an older piece of kitchen or dining-room furniture. the lower half will probably have a couple of wide cupboards to store bottles or glassware with a flat top for placing items on but backed by open shelving on which plates etc. will be stacked in such a way that they can be seen and may be the best crockery or even a family dining service on display. Snow: Thirty plus years ago I lived in an older house (apartment for me) that had a room, straight off the kitchen, with a built-in china cupboard (at least that's what I took it as). There were three dresser drawers on the bottom and what looked like a china cupboard on top without the glass and doors but the same room and style (to place your dishes [actual wooden slots to place the dishware]). Geoff: A Welsh dresser is just a particular style which is popular for folk who have decided to have a"period" style kitchen. A bureau to us is a high desk with a drop-down leaf which acts as a writing area and which, when closed, covers shelving with writing paper, pens, stamps und so weiter. Snow: I also have a bureau according to your description, which is over 100 years old, although I would call it an old fashioned writing desk. The desk, I have, has four thin legs, the desktop is slanted but lifts up (almost like an old fashioned kids school desk, but not as deep) for supplies. It also has a very large skinny drawer underneath. You could not, however, sit at this desk with a common place chair because the desk would be too high. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From n2fgc at arrl.net Mon Apr 28 04:27:25 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:27:25 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8a8e8$2986fa90$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Geoff]: | A bureau to us is a high desk with a drop-down leaf which acts as a | writing area and which, when closed, covers shelving with | writing paper, | pens, stamps und so weiter. [Lee]: Ah--that's what I believe is called a "Secretary" over here, a very old-fashioned piece of furniture which you don't see much today. I had a lovely one but it was falling apart and I didn't have the money to restore it. At the bottom were three drawers that were sort of guitar-body shaped; above the drawers was a drop-down leaf which, when up, was sort of sloped and when down made a lovely writing surface with shelving and cubby holes and a tiny little drawer for paper clips. Above that was a beautiful cabinet with two shelves and wood-and-glass doors. I used it as a desk but also as a bar, keeping my glasses in the top cabinet and my liquor on the top of the thing. Thanks for bringing back memories. :-) Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 28 06:35:12 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:35:12 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Catlady: > > I seem to recall Molly taking dishes from the dresser in the > > kitchen of 12 Grimmauld Place soon after Harry arrives there. > > Goddlefrood: > > Geoff's already expanded on what a Welsh dresser is. I would add > that while it is a familiar piece of furniture it is not all that > common. If my internal US - UK conversion is working correctly I > think it would be known as a tallboy there. > > Usually Brits put cups in cupboard (I did use most in the earlier > comment) and clothes in wardrobes. Geoff: To me, a tallboy is a high chest of drawers - maybe five levels instead of the usual three. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 09:05:32 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:05:32 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > To me, a tallboy is a high chest of drawers - maybe five levels > instead of the usual three. Goddlefrood: Ah, but it's not what it means to a Brit that counts, it's what it would mean to our American cousins. They have some odd ideas over there, including calling the engine door of a car a hood, when we all know that another item of headwear covers same, that being a bonnet. Have you never noticed the frills on many cars? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 28 14:28:10 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:28:10 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > To me, a tallboy is a high chest of drawers - maybe five levels > > instead of the usual three. > > Goddlefrood: > > Ah, but it's not what it means to a Brit that counts, it's what it > would mean to our American cousins. They have some odd ideas over > there, including calling the engine door of a car a hood, when we > all know that another item of headwear covers same, that being a > bonnet. Have you never noticed the frills on many cars? Geoff: And they're confusing elephants and cars. Don't they put their luggage in the trunk instead a the boot? I dunno. These people wot can't speak proper. :-) From kempermentor at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 15:55:22 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:55:22 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Goddlefrood: > > > > Geoff's already expanded on what a Welsh dresser is. I would add > > that while it is a familiar piece of furniture it is not all that > > common. If my internal US - UK conversion is working correctly I > > think it would be known as a tallboy there. > Geoff: > To me, a tallboy is a high chest of drawers - maybe five levels > instead of the usual three. Kemper now: To me, a tallboy is a tall can of beer (usually more than a pounder). The beer is usually of low quality and lacks flavor. Kemper From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 28 18:13:29 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:13:29 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Re: Closets and Wardrobes --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > [Goddlefrood]: > | No we don't. Most use a cupboard for cups and a wardrobe for > | clothes. Whatever gave you a contrary idea? > > [Lee]: > Perhaps it's the use of the term "Airing Cupboard" in OOTP which, I was > under the impression, refers to a linen closet in US-Speak. So, it might > follow that clothes go into a cupboard which might be a built-in wardrobe > which means "Closet" in American houses. > > Do dat make sense? > Geoff: Me again. An airing cupboard in UK speak is a cupboard which contains the hot water tank and round which, or next to which, wooden shelving has been built. The shelves are slatted to allow warm air to circulate and clothing which has been washed and/or ironed is placed in this storage area to "air" before being transferred to its usual cupboard or chest of drawers or whatever. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 21:41:29 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:41:29 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > Since the British put their cups in dressers and their dresses in cupboards, maybe the expression should be "coming out of the cupboard"? > > > > Carol, who puts her cups in the cupboard and her dresses (what few she owns) in the closet, with the dresser reserved for underwear, socks, and nightgowns) > Potioncat responded: > And do you keep trousers in a chest of drawers? > Carol again: LOL. That was very drawl, erm, droll. I think the question should be whether I keep my underwear ("drawers" to the Brits on the list) in a chest of drawers. And, yes, I do. Well, actually, a dresser is a chest of drawers with a mirror, right, at least in U.S. usage, so it makes sense to keep your "drawers" there. I looked up "drawer" to try to find more information and found this: "2\dialect also dro\: a sliding box or receptacle opened by pulling out and closed by pushing in 3\dialect also dro\plural : an article of clothing (as underwear) for the lower body" (Merriam-Webster Online) Defition 2 is dialect? Really? What else are we supposed to call that "sliding box or receptacle" in a chest of drawers or dresser or desk? Both uses appear to be derived from "drawer," Pronounced as two syllables, "draw" plus "-er," meaning "one that draws." I suppose you "draw out" a drawer in a dresser and "draw up" your drawers, meaning underwear, as you put them on. BTW, I don't think I've ever said "trousers" in my life. I say "pants" (which I realize means underwear in British usage) or, if I want to be more specific, "slacks" or "jeans." Carol, thinking what a delightful thing the English language is, in all its varieties From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 21:53:15 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:53:15 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carol: > BTW, I don't think I've ever said "trousers" in my life. I say "pants" > (which I realize means underwear in British usage) or, if I want to be > more specific, "slacks" or "jeans." Funny enough, thanks to jean makers, the term trouser is somewhat making a come back into the common US English vernacular - e.g. I'm wearing dress pants to work today but plan on wearing trouser jeans on Friday. Such a joy English is. ~Ali From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 22:10:22 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:10:22 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat: > > And do you keep trousers in a chest of drawers? > > Geoff: > Of course not; how silly. Obviously, you keep underwear and > knickers in a chest of drawers. > :-)) > > I don't know how serious you are being, Carol, but in UK speak, dresses, shirts and trousers. would go in the wardrobe while socks, underwear and small items would go in drawers. > The word "dresser" is a bit old-hat. It might be used if you possess something like a Welsh dresser but they are very out of fashion with modern kitchens having wall-hung cupboards. Closet is, surprisingly, somewhat confined in its use to something you come out of..... Well, not necessarily *you* but you know what I mean. > Carol responds: I was just having a bit of fun to lighten up the list a little, but I do think it's amusing that the little room Harry sleeps in (early in the books) is called a "cupboard" when it's nowhere near the kitchen cupboard, where cups and dishes are stored. (Glad to know that we use the same term for that.) We Americans would say that little Harry sleeps in the storage closet or broom closet under the stairs. (Of course, a closet in British usage used to mean a small, private room, right, Geoff?--which explains the term "closet drama," meant to be read rather than acted, but not in a clothes closet or a broom closet!) And before anyone mistakes my meaning, I don't think it's funny that little Harry sleeps in a "cupboard" or closet. I'm only talking about language here. We Americans don't have wardrobes. We hang our clothes in built-in closets, and have done so since at least the 1950s and possibly before. I don't think I've ever heard the term "wall-hung cupboards," either, because all the cupboards I've ever encountered are built that way, some at eye-level and some between the floor and the countertop. BTW, I'd like to compare the British and American editions of HP at some point with regard to the word "bathroom." I'm pretty sure that Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, in contrast to the Prefects' bathroom, is what the British call a "loo" or a "toilet" and Americans call a "restroom," with no bathtubs or showers in it. We call the thing that Montague was stuck in a toilet. Or, at least, I think that's what he was stuck in. Same thing with the object that Harry and Dudley were referring to when they talked about flushing people's heads. Carol, assuming that Montague's head was sticking out the toilet as even a wizard would have drowned otherwise From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 22:37:11 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:37:11 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat wrote: > While we don't have dressers in kitchens, we do have them in bedrooms. In fact, I don't ever hear chest of drawers anymore. I'm not sure what the difference is between a dresser, a chest of drawers and a bureau, but I'm not especially domestic. Carol: I was curious, too, so I looked it up at Merriam-Webster Online. Apparently, "chest of drawers" is the general term for a piece of furniture with drawers used to store clothes in a bedroom. A "bureau" is "a low chest of drawers" and a dresser is "a chest of drawers or bureau with a mirror." I would say "dresser" for all of them. M-W Online also stated that "bureau" is used in British English for a writing desk with a slanted top. Geoff can tell us whether that's current usage or "old hat." Potioncat: > We had a Bureau of Medicine in the U.S Navy, but it had nothing to do with storing medications. ,snip> Carol: Which reminds me of a childhood anecdote. I was about seven or eight and encountered the word "bureau" in a novel I was reading, so I asked my mother what "burroo" meant. She didn't know what I was talking about and asked to see the page, and then she said it was "bureau" and meant "dresser." I indignantly responded that it couldn't be pronounced "byuroh" because a bureau was a group of important people like the weather bureau! > > Geoff: > > Off at a tangent, I have been amused several times recently when reading material from across the "pond" to find references to the "parlour" being made. This, to English eyes, is very Victorian and labels its user as being incredibly old-fashioned. > > Potioncat: > It is here as well. More modern would be the living room. The family was often banned from going there because it was for company. I don't think houses have them any more. (Living rooms, not company.) Carol: Maybe it's regional. My apartment has a living room but not a family room. I've seen houses with both, in which case the living room is the front room where company is entertained and the family room is further back (and generally noisier and messier because it's for family, not company.) I never lived in a house with a family room until my parents built an addition to their house, a comfortable little room with a fireplace, which was enough in itself to draw us there in wintertime. (Flagstaff gets cold!) For awhile in the seventies, I also had a house with both a family room and a living room (I wish I still had it) with a living room in the front where we kept our stereo and a family room in the back, which had a fireplace and arcadia doors opening onto the patio. That was where we kept the TV. Two guesses which room was used more often. Carol, missing that house, with its trees and lawns, and wishing she could turn back time From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 22:44:14 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:44:14 -0000 Subject: copying/quoting/Wikipedia/cross-examination ... & a whole new topic, drawers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Catlady wrote: > Carol wrote in > : > > << Are not the spoo "facts" the property of the series' creator? Is > Wikipedia not infringing his copyright merely by retelling them? >> Carol responds: I'm not sure, but I think this comment is CJ's. I didn't discuss the "spoo" article. Carol, grinning at the "drawers" blunder and agreeing with the rest of your post, which reminds me of my experiences with high school and college journalism too any years ago to count From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 28 22:49:50 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:49:50 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > > > > Since the British put their cups in dressers and their dresses in > cupboards, maybe the expression should be "coming out of the cupboard"? > > > > > > Carol, who puts her cups in the cupboard and her dresses (what few > she owns) in the closet, with the dresser reserved for underwear, > socks, and nightgowns) > > > Potioncat responded: > > And do you keep trousers in a chest of drawers? > > > Carol again: > LOL. That was very drawl, erm, droll. I think the question should be > whether I keep my underwear ("drawers" to the Brits on the list) in a > chest of drawers. Geoff: Which was the point of my unacknowledged joke in message 36241. Carol: > BTW, I don't think I've ever said "trousers" in my life. I say "pants" > (which I realize means underwear in British usage) or, if I want to be > more specific, "slacks" or "jeans." Geoff: Which I found leads to a lot of confusion when I'm reading material from the US when the writers use "pants" for trousers and underwear interchangeably. The trouble is that slacks and jeans don't necessarily fit the bill. They don't cover formal trousers for example. I never wear jeans but I wear chinos quite a lot particularly in the winter; I am just beginning to go into short-wearing mode at the moment - but more formal trousers emerge on a Sunday. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 22:52:48 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:52:48 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Goddlefrood: > > > > Ah, but it's not what it means to a Brit that counts, it's what it > > would mean to our American cousins. They have some odd ideas over > > there, including calling the engine door of a car a hood, when we > > all know that another item of headwear covers same, that being a > > bonnet. Have you never noticed the frills on many cars? > > Geoff: > And they're confusing elephants and cars. Don't they put their luggage > in the trunk instead a the boot? > > I dunno. These people wot can't speak proper. > :-) > Potioncat: One of my favorite jokes is about an Englishman and an American arguing over what to call the different parts of a car-- boot/trunk, bonnet/hood, windscreen?/windshield. Exasperated, the American says, "I'm right. After all we Americans invented the automobile!" The Englishman replied, "True, but we invented the language." If you liked that, I have another. A man walked into... Hey, where did everybody go? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 28 22:58:11 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:58:11 -0000 Subject: And now to bathrooms..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carols: > BTW, I'd like to compare the British and American editions of HP at > some point with regard to the word "bathroom." I'm pretty sure that > Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, in contrast to the Prefects' bathroom, is > what the British call a "loo" or a "toilet" and Americans call a > "restroom," with no bathtubs or showers in it. We call the thing that > Montague was stuck in a toilet. Or, at least, I think that's what he > was stuck in. Same thing with the object that Harry and Dudley were > referring to when they talked about flushing people's heads. > > Carol, assuming that Montague's head was sticking out the toilet as > even a wizard would have drowned otherwise Geoff: This is one thing that always amuses me about US English. In the UK, the bathroom is precisely that. It contains a bath (and probably a shower) and most modern bathrooms will have a toilet as well. But a Brit with a need to "spend a penny" will ask for "the toilet" or "the loo" or sometimes jokingly "the smallest room". Some years ago, "loo" was considered rather low class and I can recall being quite surprised to hear my mother-in-law-to-be use the word on one occasion. Nowadays, it's frequently used more commonly than "the toilet". From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 23:02:00 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:02:00 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff:> > An airing cupboard in UK speak is a cupboard which contains the hot > water tank and round which, or next to which, wooden shelving has > been built. The shelves are slatted to allow warm air to circulate and > clothing which has been washed and/or ironed is placed in this > storage area to "air" before being transferred to its usual cupboard > or chest of drawers or whatever. Potioncat: Now it makes sense! I've seen the word "airing cupboard" in books and the closest I ever came to a definition was linen closet. I don't see much air going through my linen closet. But having a place near the water-heater to dry clothes is perfect. I have an airing closet in my basement and I didn't even know it! I wonder if it would pay off if we listed that in the description when we sell? I think in the past we've discussed kitchens often being below ground in British houses. Am I correct? That the kitchen at 12 GP is below, or partially below ground? I ask because it dawned on me recently that the house my mother grew up in had a kitchen below ground, with ground level windows. Her father built the house. I mean, he and some friends built it. He was a bricklayer. He was from England and now I wonder if he was building the style of house he was used to. And while we're on kitchens. What is an Aga? BTW Geoff, I laughed at your joke. Honest I did! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 23:02:00 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:02:00 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > Since the British put their cups in dressers and their dresses in cupboards, maybe the expression should be "coming out of the cupboard"? > > Goddlefrood: > > No we don't. Most use a cupboard for cups and a wardrobe for clothes. Whatever gave you a contrary idea? > Carol: I was joking, based on "the cupboard under the stairs," which I would call a closet. And Filch uses a "broom cupboard," IIRC, which, again, we Americans would call a closet. But I did think that "cupboard" ought to apply to a place to store cups and dishes rather than brooms or whatever the Dursleys store under the stairs, just as "dresser" seems an odd term for a place to store dishes (yes, I realize that most UK houses these days don't use dressers for that purpose because, like American houses, they have built-in cupboards, but, still, "dresser" seems like an odd term for a piece of furniture used to store plates. Again, I was having fun, trying to add a bit of humor to the list, which has become overly serious lately (partly my own fault). If I'm not mistaken, a closet in British English means or used to mean a small private room, whereas for Americans, it means a place to store clothing or supplies (clothes closet, broom closet, linen closet). I suspect, without looking it up, that the expression "coming out of the closet" was originally British, as was "closet drinker." At least, it makes more sense to me to have a person (figuratively) hiding in a small private room than, say, secretly drinking in a broom closet. Carol, who is genuinely interested in etymology but also finds the differences between British and American English amusing From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 23:12:07 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:12:07 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > I suspect, without looking it up, that the expression "coming out of > the closet" was originally British, as was "closet drinker." At least, > it makes more sense to me to have a person (figuratively) hiding in a > small private room than, say, secretly drinking in a broom closet. Potioncat: When I was a child, my family--indeed, the whole neighborhood--attended a small, fundamentalist, Hellfire-and-brimstone church. No drinking. One day my best friend showed me the liquor her parents thought they were hiding in the closet. (built-in wardrobe) In which sort of closet are skeletons kept? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 23:30:39 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:30:39 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: <001e01c8a8c5$509b5540$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: Lee Storm wrote: > And Geoff, I believe, said that our "Dresser" in the bedroom would be a "Dressing table" in the UK. Well, we do have dressing tables which some call a "Vanity" which is a table top supported by drawers or a small cabinet or cupboard on one or both sides and has a mirror at the back of it, sometimes with lights on the mirror...sort of like a desk-styled thing. Carol: Right. The difference between that and a dresser (a chest of drawers with a mirror on top) is that at a dresser, there's no place to put your legs and it's hard to sit comfortably. (the mirror on mine is quite tall, and if I stand back far enough (I'm tall), I can see myself from the top of my head to my knees. It would be quite awkward, however, to sit there to style my hair or put on makeup if I did that sort of thing, which I don't. (I imagine that Hepzibah Smith is sitting at what we would call a dressing table or vanity when we see her dabbing rouge on her face, but I can't find "dressing table" or any similar term used in that memory--admittedly, I didn't look very carefully.) > Lee :-) > (Who still wants to know how the word "Bureau" came to mean that in which we place clothing.) Carol: I think the etymology explains it: "Etymology: French, desk, cloth covering for desks, from Old French burel woolen cloth, from Old French *bure, from Late Latin burra shaggy cloth Date: 1699" So the better question might be how "bureau" came to refer to a group of administrators. Maybe it's related to the evolution of the term "board," which originally meant "table." The "chairman," IIRC, was the one privileged to sit in a chair at the end of the table (rather than on a bench alongside the table). Or maybe everyone else was standing. Carol, now wondering whether judges originally sat on benches rather than chairs in the early English courts ("approach the bench") From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 23:41:23 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:41:23 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lee wrote: > > Perhaps it's the use of the term "Airing Cupboard" in OOTP which, I was under the impression, refers to a linen closet in US-Speak. So, it might follow that clothes go into a cupboard which might be a built-in wardrobe which means "Closet" in American houses. Goddlefrood: > > Some, but an airing cupbaord is usually only used for bedclothes > and towels. And I won't get into water closets just yet ;-) > Carol: But isn't an airing cupboard used for drying wet clothes on a rainy day when you can't hang them outside? If so, I imagine that they've been replaced by clothes dryers in most UK houses. (I vaguely remember having this discussion once before, something about UK clothes dryers not having much power or being smaller than U.S. clothes dryers, which are quite heavy duty. I can dry a comforter in one. (Do I need to define "comforter"?) A linen closet, of course, is also used for bedclothes and towels (which nobody I now really calls "linens" anymore) but for storing them, not drying them. (My mother used to have a fold-up drying rack to dry socks and underwear on rainy or snowy days, but she used it in the kitchen. It wouldn't fit in the linen closet, which was ceiling-to-floor shelves.) I assume that an airing cupboard is large enough to walk around in. I'm guessing that it contains a clothes line or drying rack and possibly an ironing board. (No doubt I'm completely wrong, but I've never seen one.) Carol, who, as already noted, was not thinking of airing cupboards but of the cupboard under the stairs From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 23:50:36 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:50:36 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Catlady: > > I seem to recall Molly taking dishes from the dresser in the kitchen of 12 Grimmauld Place soon after Harry arrives there. > Carol: Thanks, Catlady! I knew there was at least one reference to "dresser" used in that way, but I was concentrating on "cupboard" in my posts. > Goddlefrood: > > Geoff's already expanded on what a Welsh dresser is. I would add > that while it is a familiar piece of furniture it is not all that > common. If my internal US - UK conversion is working correctly I > think it would be known as a tallboy there. Carol: I don't think we use the term "tallboy." I think we'd call it a "china cabinet." Usually, they're quite expensive and are used more for display than for storage. I can't afford such luxuries and wouldn't have any dishes worth displaying if I bought one. With regard to Molly's use of a dresser for dishes, maybe it's just one more element in the old-fashioned lifestyle (robes, candles, fireplaces for heating rather than decoration) of the WW. I'll bet that Petunia stores her dishes in the cupboard, just as she uses "eckeltricity" for lighting, heating, and cooking. (The stove might be gas, I don't know, but she also has a microwave.) Carol, glad that catlady remembered the "dresser" reference From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 00:02:17 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:02:17 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kemper wrote: > To me, a tallboy is a tall can of beer (usually more than a pounder). The beer is usually of low quality and lacks flavor. Carol responds: Then you're the person I need to consult! The manuscript I'm editing now calls a man's sleeveless tank-top shirt (what the Brits, I think, would call a "vest") a "wifebeater." I was appalled by the term and couldn't find it in the dictionary, but I did find it in common use on shopping sites. Am I being an old fogey or is "wifebeater" an acceptable term? Is there a better one that wouldn't sound so offensive? ("Vest" won't do; it's an American book.) Carol, feeling more and more lost and behind the times From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 00:07:07 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:07:07 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carol responds: > Then you're the person I need to consult! The manuscript I'm editing > now calls a man's sleeveless tank-top shirt (what the Brits, I think, > would call a "vest") a "wifebeater." I was appalled by the term and > couldn't find it in the dictionary, but I did find it in common use on > shopping sites. Am I being an old fogey or is "wifebeater" an > acceptable term? Is there a better one that wouldn't sound so > offensive? ("Vest" won't do; it's an American book.) Wifebeater is a very appropriate term, especially if it's an American book - it sounds a little appalling but I promise it's not insulting and very much common language. Just ask any 20-something or younger what they layer underneath their tees. :) ~Ali From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 00:21:04 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:21:04 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat wrote: > > > And do you keep trousers in a chest of drawers? Carol again: > > LOL. That was very drawl, erm, droll. I think the question should be whether I keep my underwear ("drawers" to the Brits on the list) in a chest of drawers. > > Geoff: > Which was the point of my unacknowledged joke in message 36241. Carol again: Sorry, Geoff. I went back to your post and caught the joke, which I had mistaken for a straightforward comment before. Too subtle, I guess. And you don't resort to emoticons, IIRC. > > Carol: > > BTW, I don't think I've ever said "trousers" in my life. I say "pants" (which I realize means underwear in British usage) or, if I want to be more specific, "slacks" or "jeans." > > Geoff: > Which I found leads to a lot of confusion when I'm reading material from the US when the writers use "pants" for trousers and underwear interchangeably. Carol: Well, no. we don't use "pants" for "underwear." It's "underpants" and "underwear" that are used interchangeably. You may be thinking of "panties" for women's underwear. (Men wear briefs or shorts, but "shorts" is also used for short pants worn as an outer garment.) Geoff: > The trouble is that slacks and jeans don't necessarily fit the bill. They don't cover formal trousers for example. I never wear jeans but I wear chinos quite a lot particularly in the winter; I am just beginning to go into short-wearing mode at the moment - but more formal trousers emerge on a Sunday. Carol: >From my perspective as a woman, "slacks" and "dress pants" are pretty much synonymous. It might be different for men. Bear in mind, too, that Tucson is a casual town. We don't have "casual Fridays" because hardly anyone (except lawyers and a few other professional people) dresses up to go to work. It's just too hot in summer (over 100 degrees, which I think is about 32 C. but I don't want to calculate it right now) for a man to wear a suit and tie or a woman to wear a suit and heels. Geoff: > Carol: Re "bonnet" and "hood," I don't know which term came first, though the automobile was invented in America, but it's possible that American men thought that "bonnet" was too feminine and preferred "hood." As for trunk, obviously they were thinking along the lines of steamer trunks (the sort of thing that Harry takes to Hogwarts for six years), not elephants. (I know you knew that and were joking about the elephants. :-) ) Carol, whose next editing project is from a woman in Scotland, so I may need to post more Britspeak questions here in the next few weeks From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 00:32:47 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:32:47 -0000 Subject: And now to bathrooms..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > > BTW, I'd like to compare the British and American editions of HP at some point with regard to the word "bathroom." I'm pretty sure that Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, in contrast to the Prefects' bathroom, is what the British call a "loo" or a "toilet" and Americans call a "restroom," with no bathtubs or showers in it. We call the thing that Montague was stuck in a toilet. > > Geoff: > This is one thing that always amuses me about US English. > > In the UK, the bathroom is precisely that. It contains a bath (and probably a shower) and most modern bathrooms will have a toilet as well. Carol: Here, too. But public restrooms, as we call them, have only toilets and sinks. (Well, also mirrors hand dryers, etc.) But it's silly to call them "bathrooms," as some people do. > > But a Brit with a need to "spend a penny" will ask for "the toilet" or "the loo" or sometimes jokingly "the smallest room". > > Some years ago, "loo" was considered rather low class and I can recall being quite surprised to hear my mother-in-law-to-be use the word on one occasion. Nowadays, it's frequently used more commonly than "the toilet". Carol: Could the reason for "loo" becoming more common in the UK be that "toilet" is now being reserved for the thing Moaning Myrtle dives into and Montague got stuck in? Or because "toilet" is ambiguous? Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that what the U.S. editions refer to as "Moaning Myrtle's bathroom" appears as either "Moaning Myrtle's loo" or "Moaning Myrtle's toilet" in the UK editions. Since "toilet" has two possible meanings, I think "loo" is better (less ambiguous) to refer to the room itself. (Also, Draco isn't crying in a bathroom (UK usage) is he? I think it's a boys' restroom (loo). Carol, who suspects that it now costs considerably more than a penny to use a public loo From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 00:43:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:43:31 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > Then you're the person I need to consult! The manuscript I'm editing now calls a man's sleeveless tank-top shirt (what the Brits, I think, would call a "vest") a "wifebeater." I was appalled by the term and couldn't find it in the dictionary, but I did find it in common use on shopping sites. Am I being an old fogey or is "wifebeater" an acceptable term? Is there a better one that wouldn't sound so offensive? ("Vest" won't do; it's an American book.) Ali responded: > Wifebeater is a very appropriate term, especially if it's an American book - it sounds a little appalling but I promise it's not insulting and very much common language. Just ask any 20-something or younger what they layer underneath their tees. :) Carol again: Thanks, Ali. The writer is American and her characters are in their early twenties, so I expect that she's about the same age. I wonder, though, how somewhat older readers would respond to it. (It's a romance novel, which might, theoretically, be read by women in their thirties. I doubt that many men would read it just because of the genre, even though one of the narrators is male. Still, I'd like to have a few more reactions. I confess that the reference is specifically to a black wifebeater, and I thought at first that it was a racist remark! (Maybe she should change the color to gray? Or am I just being squeamish and old-fashioned and seeing things that aren't there?) Carol, who really dislikes the term "wifebeater" and hates the idea of legitimizing it through potentially published fiction From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 00:44:22 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:44:22 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > > Of course not; how silly. Obviously, you keep underwear and > > knickers in a chest of drawers. > > :-)) > > > > I don't know how serious you are being, Carol, but in UK speak, > dresses, shirts and trousers. would go in the wardrobe while socks, > underwear and small items would go in drawers. > > The word "dresser" is a bit old-hat. It might be used if you > possess something like a Welsh dresser but they are very out of > fashion with modern kitchens having wall-hung cupboards. Closet is, > surprisingly, somewhat confined in its use to something you come out > of..... Well, not necessarily *you* but you know what I mean. > > > > Carol responds: > I was just having a bit of fun to lighten up the list a little, but I > do think it's amusing that the little room Harry sleeps in (early in > the books) is called a "cupboard" when it's nowhere near the kitchen > cupboard, where cups and dishes are stored. (Glad to know that we use > the same term for that.) > > We Americans would say that little Harry sleeps in the storage closet > or broom closet under the stairs. I'm only talking about language here. > > We Americans don't have wardrobes. Magpie: I think I would say he slept in a cupboard and while I don't have a wardrobe I have seen them in America. Usually people have closets, but they sometimes exist. In my house growing up we had a "standing closet" which was pretty much like a wardrobe, but I assume it was because it was a little too plain to be considered a wardrobe my mother called it a standing closet. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 00:51:34 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:51:34 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > Then you're the person I need to consult! The manuscript I'm editing > now calls a man's sleeveless tank-top shirt (what the Brits, I think, > would call a "vest") a "wifebeater." I was appalled by the term and > couldn't find it in the dictionary, but I did find it in common use on > shopping sites. Am I being an old fogey or is "wifebeater" an > acceptable term? Is there a better one that wouldn't sound so > offensive? ("Vest" won't do; it's an American book.) > > Carol, feeling more and more lost and behind the times Magpie: why not just call it an undershirt? I think most people would know that's what's often today called a wife beater. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 00:55:37 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:55:37 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol again: > > Thanks, Ali. The writer is American and her characters are in their > early twenties, so I expect that she's about the same age. I wonder, > though, how somewhat older readers would respond to it. (It's a > romance novel, which might, theoretically, be read by women in their > thirties. I doubt that many men would read it just because of the > genre, even though one of the narrators is male. > > Still, I'd like to have a few more reactions. Magpie: Oh, sorry. I must have thought you were translating or something, which is why I said "just call it an undershirt." But wife-beater is pretty much what I've gotten used to by now. If it's unfamiliar it's going to be offensive but I consider it pretty standard now. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 02:13:26 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:13:26 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > Oh, sorry. I must have thought you were translating or something, which > is why I said "just call it an undershirt." > > But wife-beater is pretty much what I've gotten used to by now. If it's > unfamiliar it's going to be offensive but I consider it pretty standard > now. Potioncat: It's a specific type of undershirt. The A style, without sleeves. It used to be a man's undershirt and I think the term has a stereotypic ethnic connotation. Since you mention it's black, I assume a woman is wearing it. That style shirt is popular with teens and comes in different colors. Sometimes worn as a shirt with another shirt unbuttoned over it, or showing at the neck line. Personally, I'd be careful with the term. Unless it's being used in dialogue. But I tend to overcompensate for this sort of thing. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 02:19:17 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:19:17 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > Oh, sorry. I must have thought you were translating or something, > which > > is why I said "just call it an undershirt." > > > > But wife-beater is pretty much what I've gotten used to by now. If > it's > > unfamiliar it's going to be offensive but I consider it pretty > standard > > now. > > > Potioncat: > It's a specific type of undershirt. The A style, without sleeves. It > used to be a man's undershirt and I think the term has a stereotypic > ethnic connotation. Magpie: Yes, I know the kind of shirt it is--I got confused thinking it was a translation or something, so I was thinking we were talking about a real man's sleeveless undershirt worn by a man. As opposed to like what I was wearing layered under a shirt yesterday. It does have ethnic connotations--I mean, this is the shirt Stanley Kowalski wears while he's yelling and beating his wife etc. It used to have an even more offensive ethnic name, I believe. I think there was a time some people called it a "guinea tee." But it this is supposed to be a contemporary romance novel about modern young people that's probably the word that would be used. One could use "black tank top" if they didn't like it, but if the author chose wife-beater she probably chose the trendier term on purpose. -m From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 02:20:53 2008 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:20:53 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol responds: Then you're the person I need to consult! The manuscript I'm editing now calls a man's sleeveless tank-top shirt (what the Brits, I think, would call a "vest") a "wifebeater." I was appalled by the term and couldn't find it in the dictionary, but I did find it in common use on shopping sites. Am I being an old fogey or is "wifebeater" an acceptable term? Is there a better one that wouldn't sound so offensive? ("Vest" won't do; it's an American book.) Snow: For what it's worth, we used to call them muscle-man shirts. They showed off the appropriate bulging areas. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 03:23:53 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:23:53 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat: > It's a specific type of undershirt. The A style, without sleeves. It > used to be a man's undershirt and I think the term has a stereotypic > ethnic connotation. > > Since you mention it's black, I assume a woman is wearing it. That > style shirt is popular with teens and comes in different colors. > Sometimes worn as a shirt with another shirt unbuttoned over it, or > showing at the neck line. > > Personally, I'd be careful with the term. Unless it's being used in > dialogue. But I tend to overcompensate for this sort of thing. > Carol: It's a man who's wearing it, the point being that it reveals his muscles, and it's not in dialogue. And I think you're right about the ethnic origin based on the bit of research I did when I first encountered the term. It seems to suggest the same kind of misogynist attitude that's sometimes encountered in rap.) And, for the sake of discussion, if this term isn't generally considered offensive, why isn't it? It's almost as if using the term condones wifebeating (manly men wear sexy shirts and beat their wives). Does anyone see what I'm getting at? It doesn't seem like the kind of term that *ought* to be legitimized. I agree that "undershirt" isn't the right term because undershirts are often, if not usually, white, and can be either T-shirts or A-shirts (a term I also hadn't heard till I did this bit of research). Would "tank top" do, or is that outdated and/or for women? (Maybe the guy should just take off his shirt and be done with it!) Carol, hoping that other readers will chime in, including those unfamiliar with the term From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 03:29:52 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:29:52 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > Yes, I know the kind of shirt it is--I got confused thinking it was a > translation or something, so I was thinking we were talking about a > real man's sleeveless undershirt worn by a man. As opposed to like > what I was wearing layered under a shirt yesterday. > > It does have ethnic connotations--I mean, this is the shirt Stanley > Kowalski wears while he's yelling and beating his wife etc. It used > to have an even more offensive ethnic name, I believe. I think there > was a time some people called it a "guinea tee." > > But it this is supposed to be a contemporary romance novel about > modern young people that's probably the word that would be used. One > could use "black tank top" if they didn't like it, but if the author > chose wife-beater she probably chose the trendier term on purpose. Carol responds: She's a first-time author with no idea of how readers will react, which is why I'm testing for reactions here. I'm not going to change the word, only query it, and it would help if I could suggest alternate terms. So far, "tank top" is the only possibility. And I still think that the color ought to be changed because "black wifebeater" glimpsed out of context suggests something very different from an article of clothing. Carol, who thinks that the author chose "wifebeater" because she's about twenty-two and hasn't considered the connotations of the word From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 03:34:22 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:34:22 -0000 Subject: "Wifebeaters" (Was: Closets and Wardrobes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Snow: > > For what it's worth, we used to call them muscle-man shirts. They > showed off the appropriate bulging areas. > Carol: Thanks, Snow. That's a lot better, but it might depend on when and where that term was used. Can you give me a bit more background? But, yes, the whole idea of the shirt relates to the young man's chest muscles, so the term certainly fits. Carol, still looking for suggestions From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 03:43:30 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:43:30 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > And, for the sake of discussion, if this term isn't generally > considered offensive, why isn't it? It's almost as if using the term > condones wifebeating (manly men wear sexy shirts and beat their > wives). Does anyone see what I'm getting at? It doesn't seem like the > kind of term that *ought* to be legitimized. Magpie: That's interesting--I never associated them with being sexy. When I heard it the first time I assumed that it wasn't supposed to be sexy. Like it was associated with lower class men, probably with a belly and a beer in one hand and stains on the shirt in question. I remember being taken aback by it the first time I heard it--but at the same time I realized that I knew exactly what shirt they were describing, so I thought it was sort of blackly comic. But maybe other people associate it with manliness in a good way. -m From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 03:47:44 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:47:44 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > > It's a specific type of undershirt. The A style, without sleeves. > > It used to be a man's undershirt and > > I think the term has a stereotypic ethnic connotation. > > > > Since you mention it's black, I assume a woman is wearing it. > > ... > Carol: > It's a man who's wearing it > ... And I think you're right about the > ethnic origin based on the bit of research I did when I first > encountered the term. It seems to suggest the same kind of > misogynist attitude that's sometimes encountered in rap.) > > And, for the sake of discussion, if this term isn't generally > considered offensive, why isn't it? It's almost as if using the term > condones wifebeating (manly men wear sexy shirts and beat their > wives). Does anyone see what I'm getting at? It doesn't seem like > the kind of term that *ought* to be legitimized. > > I agree that "undershirt" isn't the right term ... undershirts are > often, if not usually, white, and can be either T-shirts or A-shirts > (a term I also hadn't heard till I did this bit of research). Would > "tank top" do, or is that outdated and/or for women? (Maybe the guy > should just take off his shirt and be done with it!) Kemper now: Chiming in even though I, too, am familiar with the term. While the shirt may have suggested ethnic tendencies in the past, it now suggests class especially with the term 'wife-beater'. Prolly cause of many episodes of Cops where they go to domestic disputes and the man (regardless of race/ethnicity) is frequently wearing a 'wife-beater' if he's wearing a shirt at all. What I find odd is that the writer describes the shirt as black. You should query the color. Wifebeaters are white. I realize the style comes in other colors, but if it's a man that's wearing it, then it should be white. Unless the man has some class or some wealth... if so, then maybe he should be wearing a black undershirt two sizes too small. That, or he shouldn't be wearing a shirt at all. Just my opinion. Kemper, who's about to open a tallboy From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 03:48:08 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:48:08 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > And, for the sake of discussion, if this term isn't generally > considered offensive, why isn't it? It's almost as if using the term > condones wifebeating (manly men wear sexy shirts and beat their > wives). Does anyone see what I'm getting at? It doesn't seem like the > kind of term that *ought* to be legitimized. > Potioncat: I thought the offensive nature of the name was that it implied that a male of a certain ethnic background would likely be a wife-beater. (Italian? Polish? European?) Or are they considered Gangsta now? Different ethnicity. I'll ask Sarah what she thinks. (oh yeah, a teenaged girl's answer is going to be very helpful.) What are they called in stores? That might be a better choice. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 03:58:27 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:58:27 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Goddlefrood: > > Geoff's already expanded on what a Welsh dresser is. I would add > > that while it is a familiar piece of furniture it is not all that > > common. If my internal US - UK conversion is working correctly I > > think it would be known as a tallboy there. > > Carol: > I don't think we use the term "tallboy." I think we'd call it a "china > cabinet." Kemper now, briefly: I call that a 'hutch'. Is that what a tallboy is? Kemper, gulps from his tallboy From mskeshaffer at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 04:28:23 2008 From: mskeshaffer at earthlink.net (mskeshaffer) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:28:23 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here is a pictureof a "wifebeater" http://www.hanes.com/Hanes/Products/Men-Hanes/Men_ShopByCategory- Hanes/Men_Tshirts-Hanes/Men_Tshirts_Bestsellers-Hanes/H7996.aspx I always thought the term was mildly derogatory. Those that wear this as outerwear probably use the term with pride, but most of us see the use of this shirt (alone, not as an undergarment) as a style common of lower class, perhaps "trailer trash", where education is minimal and domestic disputes prevalent. I have only seen them in white. For what its worth, I am from California. > > Potioncat: > > > It's a specific type of undershirt. The A style, without sleeves. > > > It used to be a man's undershirt and > > > I think the term has a stereotypic ethnic connotation. > > > > > > Since you mention it's black, I assume a woman is wearing it. > > > ... > > > Carol: > > It's a man who's wearing it > > ... And I think you're right about the > > ethnic origin based on the bit of research I did when I first > > encountered the term. It seems to suggest the same kind of > > misogynist attitude that's sometimes encountered in rap.) > > > > And, for the sake of discussion, if this term isn't generally > > considered offensive, why isn't it? It's almost as if using the term > > condones wifebeating (manly men wear sexy shirts and beat their > > wives). Does anyone see what I'm getting at? It doesn't seem like > > the kind of term that *ought* to be legitimized. > > > > I agree that "undershirt" isn't the right term ... undershirts are > > often, if not usually, white, and can be either T-shirts or A- shirts > > (a term I also hadn't heard till I did this bit of research). Would > > "tank top" do, or is that outdated and/or for women? (Maybe the guy > > should just take off his shirt and be done with it!) > > Kemper now: > Chiming in even though I, too, am familiar with the term. > > While the shirt may have suggested ethnic tendencies in the past, it > now suggests class especially with the term 'wife-beater'. Prolly > cause of many episodes of Cops where they go to domestic disputes and > the man (regardless of race/ethnicity) is frequently wearing a > 'wife-beater' if he's wearing a shirt at all. > > What I find odd is that the writer describes the shirt as black. You > should query the color. Wifebeaters are white. I realize the style > comes in other colors, but if it's a man that's wearing it, then it > should be white. Unless the man has some class or some wealth... if > so, then maybe he should be wearing a black undershirt two sizes too > small. That, or he shouldn't be wearing a shirt at all. > > From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Apr 29 04:31:30 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:31:30 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: And now to bathrooms..... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8a9b1$e59ce770$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Carol]: | Could the reason for "loo" becoming more common in the UK be that | "toilet" is now being reserved for the thing Moaning Myrtle dives into | and Montague got stuck in? Or because "toilet" is ambiguous? | | Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that what the U.S. | editions refer to as "Moaning Myrtle's bathroom" appears as either | "Moaning Myrtle's loo" or "Moaning Myrtle's toilet" in the UK | editions. Since "toilet" has two possible meanings, I think "loo" is | better (less ambiguous) to refer to the room itself. (Also, Draco | isn't crying in a bathroom (UK usage) is he? I think it's a boys' | restroom (loo). [Lee]: Okay, now how about the meaning of "Toilet" as regards "toiletries" or preparing someone's *toilet*? I remember when I was a kid and heard/read about things like "Toilet water" and "Toiletries", I used to shake my head and wonder why someone would want to put on stuff from a toilet (the kind one flushes). Ah--and don't forget the term "Lavatory," which is what many US types call the "Rest Room" or "Toilet." [Carol]: | | Carol, who suspects that it now costs considerably more than a penny | to use a public loo [Lee]: O Gord! I'm so glad that those pay toilets don't exist any more, as far as I know, in the US! Of course, when you had to go, you never had the requisite 10-cent piece and you were the only one in the toilet. So, if one was brave enough, it was crawl-under-the-door time. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 04:41:17 2008 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <545681.94744.qm@web53012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> That name for that shirt has been around for 30 or more years. I have always thought of it as a lower-class white trailer trash kind of thing. Eeeew. Alex Hogan potioncat wrote: > Magpie: > Oh, sorry. I must have thought you were translating or something, which > is why I said "just call it an undershirt." > > But wife-beater is pretty much what I've gotten used to by now. If it's > unfamiliar it's going to be offensive but I consider it pretty standard > now. Potioncat: It's a specific type of undershirt. The A style, without sleeves. It used to be a man's undershirt and I think the term has a stereotypic ethnic connotation. Since you mention it's black, I assume a woman is wearing it. That style shirt is popular with teens and comes in different colors. Sometimes worn as a shirt with another shirt unbuttoned over it, or showing at the neck line. Personally, I'd be careful with the term. Unless it's being used in dialogue. But I tend to overcompensate for this sort of thing. --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mskeshaffer at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 04:47:32 2008 From: mskeshaffer at earthlink.net (mskeshaffer) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:47:32 -0000 Subject: And now to bathrooms..... In-Reply-To: <000001c8a9b1$e59ce770$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: > [Lee]: > Okay, now how about the meaning of "Toilet" as regards "toiletries" or > preparing someone's *toilet*? I remember when I was a kid and heard/read > about things like "Toilet water" and "Toiletries", I used to shake my head > and wonder why someone would want to put on stuff from a toilet (the kind > one flushes). HA HA! I remember my mother having "Toilet Water" when I was a child, and I was so disgusted. I honestly thought it was water from the toilet, with scent in it. So, to clarify, you brits call both the room AND the porcelain fixture the toilet? Martha From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Apr 29 05:07:50 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:07:50 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000101c8a9b6$f9259170$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | Carol, who really dislikes the term "wifebeater" and hates the idea of | legitimizing it through potentially published fiction [Lee]: I completely agree! And I've never heard that term before for that sleeveless garment. I've heard "tank top" but not that term which I shall not repeat because it sounds degrading and nasty. How long has that term been in use and how did it come into being? Lee :) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 05:09:06 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:09:06 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carol: > She's a first-time author with no idea of how readers will react, > which is why I'm testing for reactions here. I'm not going to change > the word, only query it, and it would help if I could suggest > alternate terms. So far, "tank top" is the only possibility. And I > still think that the color ought to be changed because "black > wifebeater" glimpsed out of context suggests something very different > from an article of clothing. Ali: Tank tops are what women wear. They're generally regarded as the spaghetti strap contraptions. Though I've seen wifebeaters referred to as tank tops, it doesn't change the fact that women are generally the only ones who wear tank tops. However, I would follow your instinct to change the color, if only because men's wifebeaters are rarely anything but white. Designer wifebeaters (yeah, that's not wrong) come in a million colours and sometimes have crazy designs. If your author is 22, she (or her character) might be the Urban Outfitter type, and her wifebeaters are shorter, more fitted, and meant to be worn somewhat layered (aka throw an unbuttons shirt over it) or completely by itself. > Carol, who thinks that the author chose "wifebeater" because she's > about twenty-two and hasn't considered the connotations of the word Ali: What can I say? We're a strange bunch, us 20-somethings (I'm 25). The term wifebeater, by the time it got to us, had lost all ethnic/whatever connotation. It's still considered somewhat "redneck" (a la King of the Hills for those who watch American TV) but not offensive. Probably none of us have ever thought about the term and why it's called such, so we generally don't think of it as offensive - gross generalization, yes, but also mostly true. To be honest, I'm fascinated by this whole conversation since, as stated, people my age wear wifebeaters. I graduated from an Ivy League Uni with some seriously old money folks, and the girls in my class (and I admit I did it on rare occasions) spent a goodly amount of money on their designer wifebeaters (whereupon they would also be called tank tops because such a term is acceptable for a female). It's true that they're generally worn layered so it's not always a "plain tee over jeans" type of situation, but I don't think anyone considered it lower class or uncouth. ~Ali From mskeshaffer at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 06:28:13 2008 From: mskeshaffer at earthlink.net (mskeshaffer) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:28:13 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Ali: > What can I say? We're a strange bunch, us 20-somethings (I'm 25). > The term wifebeater, by the time it got to us, had lost all > ethnic/whatever connotation. It's still considered somewhat "redneck" > (a la King of the Hills for those who watch American TV) but not > offensive. Probably none of us have ever thought about the term and > why it's called such, so we generally don't think of it as offensive - > gross generalization, yes, but also mostly true. > > To be honest, I'm fascinated by this whole conversation since, as > stated, people my age wear wifebeaters. I graduated from an Ivy > League Uni with some seriously old money folks, and the girls in my > class (and I admit I did it on rare occasions) spent a goodly amount > of money on their designer wifebeaters (whereupon they would also be > called tank tops because such a term is acceptable for a female). > It's true that they're generally worn layered so it's not always a > "plain tee over jeans" type of situation, but I don't think anyone > considered it lower class or uncouth. > > ~Ali I think that this is probably a generational thing. I'm 43, and you're right- I think it has lost its negative connotation as the years went by. They were definitely trailer-trash apparel when I was your age. Funny how the name stuck, though! Martha From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 29 07:03:55 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:03:55 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: <000101c8a9b6$f9259170$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: Geoff: One of the problems of living on the nice side of the "pond" is that the group sometimes goes wild while I am asleep. Last night, I posted message 36274 at 23:58 and retired to bye-byes only to wake up and log on this morning at 07:00 to find 36305 on the list! So, I'm going to have to do a Catlady and try to answer a number of comments from different messages. In post 36275, Potioncat wrote: > I think in the past we've discussed kitchens often being below ground > in British houses. Am I correct? That the kitchen at 12 GP is below, or > partially below ground? > I ask because it dawned on me recently that the house my mother > grew up in had a kitchen below ground, with ground level windows. > Her father built the house. I mean, he and some friends built it. He > was a bricklayer. He was from England and now I wonder if he was > building the style of house he was used to. Geoff: Generally, this only happened in older Victorian/Edwardian houses which had servants ? you'll get the idea if you ever watched the TV series "Upstairs, Downstairs". Most newer UK houses, say from the 1930s onwards do not have any underfloor areas; storage, as in my present house, is in a loft. Potioncat: And while we're on kitchens. What is an Aga? Geoff: A large stove for heating and producing hot water with side ovens for baking. They are usually solid fuel, coal or wood although there are oil-fired installations nowadays. In message 36276, Carol wrote: > But I did think that "cupboard" ought to apply to a place to store cups > rather than brooms or whatever the Dursleys store under the stairs Geoff: Well, its original etymology was a board on which crockery was placed, then became a closed box as the cupboard we know today and has expanded to cover any similar construction. Almost every UK house has a cupboard under the stairs, usually referred to by that name. In post 36280, Carol wrote > > Goddlefrood: > > Geoff's already expanded on what a Welsh dresser is. I would > > add that while it is a familiar piece of furniture it is not all that > > common. If my internal US - UK conversion is working correctly > > I think it would be known as a tallboy there. > Carol: > I don't think we use the term "tallboy." I think we'd call it a "china > cabinet." Usually, they're quite expensive and are used more for > display than for storage. I can't afford such luxuries and wouldn't > have any dishes worth displaying if I bought one. Geoff: A dresser would have open shelves on which the plates etc. are stacked individually, leaning back. A china cabinet usually doesn't have the same cupboard space below and has glass-fronted doors and would also display china other than plates etc. In message 36281, Carol (wot, `er again?) wrote: > Then you're the person I need to consult! The manuscript I'm editing > now calls a man's sleeveless tank-top shirt (what the Brits, I think, > would call a "vest") a "wifebeater." Geoff: I must lead a sheltered existence. Like Lee, I've never heard the term before. In UK speak, a vest is an item of underwear between the shirt and the body ? if you wear one. (I haven't for several years). Sometimes also called a singlet if it's the sleeveless type such as runners wear. Finally (whew!), Lee Storm wrote in 36301: > Ah--and don't forget the term "Lavatory," which is what many > the "Rest Room" or "Toilet." Geoff: Interestingly, this word has dropped out of UK English recently. You rarely hear it used in conversation. And in public, where you used to look for the sign "Public Lavatories" ? or the more delicate "Public Conveniences" ? now you look for plain and simple "Toilets". From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 11:15:23 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:15:23 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ali: > > However, I would follow your instinct to change the color, if only > because men's wifebeaters are rarely anything but white. Designer > wifebeaters (yeah, that's not wrong) come in a million colours and > sometimes have crazy designs. If your author is 22, she (or her > character) might be the Urban Outfitter type, and her wifebeaters are > shorter, more fitted, and meant to be worn somewhat layered (aka throw > an unbuttons shirt over it) or completely by itself. > Potioncat: And now from a younger point of view. My daughter (18)says the garment is called "beater"---they've dropped the wife. As in, "Mom, did you wash my pink beater?" Girls also call them tank tops because it is the same garment in different colors. Girls wear both the actual men's undergarment and tanktops. Guys wear white or black beaters. All sorts of guys wear them, there isn't any connotation. I asked if it was part of a particular look. Her answer was that a gangster would wear his beater with low riding baggy pants (most likely sweats) while a skater would wear his beater with tight fiting pants. No, Geoff, I don't mean underwear, but I don't mean trousers either BTW, ganster and skater are styles, not necessarily people who are gangsters or who really ride skateboards. Who would have thought that a humble undergarment worn by working class men would become a versatile fashion accessary. So the bigger question becomes, would you keep your beater in the chest of drawers, or the wardrobe? Carol, if this book is ever published, I want to read it. Just because of all our input for the one word. Potioncat, who now hears the song "Skater Boy" playing in her head, superimposed with the image of Edgar G. Robinson in a wife-beater. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 11:45:31 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:45:31 -0000 Subject: OMG! (was Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Carol, whose next editing project is from a woman in Scotland, so I > may need to post more Britspeak questions here in the next few weeks > Potioncat: OMG! How did this go by us? We've been so busy discussing wife-beaters that Carol's news went right under the radar! Carol, you're so smart. When this becomes public knowledge and we ask, "Why didn't you tell us?" you'll be able to say, "But I did tell you." Look everybody, at the remainder of the post above. Carol is editing JKR's next book! From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 29 13:21:51 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:21:51 -0000 Subject: Back to the beginning Message-ID: Thought some of you might find this amusing.I did !!!!! Jayne In my next life I want to live my life backwards. You start > out dead and get that out of the way. Then you wake up in an > old people's home feeling better every day. You get > kicked out for being too healthy, go collect your pension, > and then when you start work, you get a gold watch and a > party on your first day. > > You work for 40 years until you're young enough to > enjoy your retirement. You party, drink alcohol, and are > generally promiscuous, and then you are ready for high > school. You then go to primary school, you become a kid, > you play. > > You have no responsibilities; you become a baby until you > are born. And then you spend your last 9 months floating > in luxurious spa like conditions with central heating and > room service on tap, larger quarters every day and then > Voila! > You finish off as an orgasm! > > I rest my case. > > > (by Woody Allen) > From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 29 14:11:35 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:11:35 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" wrote: Ali: > Tank tops are what women wear. They're generally regarded as the > spaghetti strap contraptions. Geoff: Here comes another US/UK variation. When I was at secondary school, part of the school uniform was a pullover. This was like a jumper but sleeveless and had a V-neck. Most kids at that time had grey school pullovers sometimes with a coloured stripe around the neck. In the HP films, we often see the gang wearing something like this, Harry and Ron having a red Gryffindor stripe on theirs. I'm not totally sure whether these are pullovers or jumpers because I can't find a scene where they are wearing them without robes. However, in OOTP, Neville is seen several times wearing a navy or black pullover. It was also not uncommon for adults to wear multicoloured ones. So what, I hear you say? Although they're not really part of the scene nowadays they did come back into fashion for a while some years ago for a while and were referred to as... tank tops. I can only repeat a quote from George Bernard Shaw I posted many moons ago: England and America are two countries separated by the same language. Mark you, he was Irish anyway so why was he complaining? :-) From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Apr 29 14:13:24 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:13:24 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000b01c8aa03$3056d540$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Personally, I prefer "Tank Top" or just sleeveless shirt; I know that "Camisole" would probably be more along what this kind of under shirt would be for a woman. Lee :) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 14:35:37 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:35:37 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > In the HP films, we often see the gang wearing something like this, > Harry and Ron having a red Gryffindor stripe on theirs. I'm not totally > sure whether these are pullovers or jumpers because I can't find a > scene where they are wearing them without robes. However, in OOTP, > Neville is seen several times wearing a navy or black pullover. It was > also not uncommon for adults to wear multicoloured ones. > Potioncat, What are the kids wearing when they see Sirius in the fire of the Gryffindor common room? I think Hermione is wearing a jumper. In the meantime, I'm trying very hard not to imagine Neville wearing an American jumper and tank top. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 16:00:53 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:00:53 -0000 Subject: Now Cars - Gottlieb Daimler Message-ID: Recently Geoff posted a joke about an American and a Brit discussing variations in Car terminology. At the end the American said (something to the effect), well we invented the automobile, to which the Brit replied, well we invented the language. It is a common misconception that Henry Ford invented the automobile. What Ford did was invent the assembly line process by which car could be made at an affordable price. But it is universally understood by those of us in-the-know, that Gottlieb Wilhelm Daimler invented and sold the first automobile. >From Wikipedia - Henry Ford - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford "...(Ford) had enough time and money to devote attention to his personal experiments on gasoline engines. These experiments culminated in 1896 with the completion of his own self-propelled vehicle named the Ford Quadricycle, which he test-drove on June 4." Note the date 1896, this wasn't the first commercial vehicle, this was Ford's first productive working model. Gottlieb Daimler - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlieb_Daimler "They patented in 1885[citation needed] a precursor of the modern petrol engine which they subsequently fitted to a two-wheeler, considered the first motorcycle and, in the next year, to a stagecoach, and a boat." 1885, though not quite the first automobile. "Later, in 1890, they founded Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft (DMG). They sold their first automobile in 1892." Daimler sold his first car FOUR years before Ford invented his 'Quadricycle'. Though the history is far more complex than I am making it out here, basically, after forming the Daimler motor company, he later joined with Benz to form Daimler-Benz. Benz later merged with Mercedes to for Mercedes-Benz. So there you have absolute proof that it was the Germans who invented the true automobile. Again, Ford invented the assembly line process that lowered costs. Ford was also smart enough to know that if he paid his worker extremely high wages for the day, they would turn around and buy cars with that money. I know this because I came across it as an obscure fact when I was in high school. Later on a test, the question was asked 'Who invented the Automobile?', and I put Gottlieb Daimler, even though I knew the teacher was expecting me to put 'Henry Ford'. Naturally, I was marked wrong. So, I brought the teacher proof that Daimler had his car on the market first, but the teacher refused to change the grade. That's when I learn that teachers are stubborn and unyielding, and that life is usually unfair. It should be noted, either to add or remove confusion, that there was another 'Daimler Motor Company' that was in Britain, though I don't think it was directly associated with it's German cousin. Wikipedia - Daimler Motor Company - Coventry, England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Motor_Company "The Daimler Motor Company was a British motor vehicle manufacturing company, founded in 1896, and based in Coventry. The company became a subsidiary of BSA in 1910, and was acquired by Jaguar Cars in 1960." "...This was the origin of the Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft ("Daimler Motors Company") which built cars from the 1890s onwards and sold licenses of its designs and patents to others. The licence granted to the Daimler Motor Company included the right to use the Daimler name in Great Britain." So, the British version licensed the name and the designs from the German Mr. Daimler. And for the record, BSA used to make some SWEET motorcycles. Hey...I'm just saying. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 29 16:17:46 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:17:46 -0000 Subject: Now Cars - Gottlieb Daimler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Recently Geoff posted a joke about an American and a Brit > discussing variations in Car terminology. At the end the > American said (something to the effect), well we invented the > automobile, to which the Brit replied, well we invented the > language. > > It is a common misconception that Henry Ford invented the > automobile. What Ford did was invent the assembly line process > by which car could be made at an affordable price. > > But it is universally understood by those of us in-the-know, > that Gottlieb Wilhelm Daimler invented and sold the first > automobile. > Hey...I'm just saying. > > Steve/bboyminn Geoff: You just got in before me because I've been intending to take this one up during today. First, I didn't post the joke you mention. It was Potioncat in message 36273. Back to the subject. My sources suggest that the honours for the first car go to Karl Benz in 1885 followed very closely by Gottlieb Daimler in possibly the following year. It seems that the first US cars were produced by the Duryea brothers in 1893. Course, we ought to take on board the first mechanically propelled vehicle in which case the prize goes to Nicolas Cugnot who built a steam powered machine in 1769. Anyone for a walk? :-) From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 16:22:51 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:22:51 -0000 Subject: Now Cars - Gottlieb Daimler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Recently Geoff posted a joke about an American and a Brit > discussing variations in Car terminology. At the end the > American said (something to the effect), well we invented the > automobile, to which the Brit replied, well we invented the > language. > > It is a common misconception that Henry Ford invented the > automobile. What Ford did was invent the assembly line process > by which car could be made at an affordable price. > > But it is universally understood by those of us in-the-know, > that Gottlieb Wilhelm Daimler invented and sold the first > automobile. Interesting. I knew the Daimler name went way back in the history of autos, but hadn't realised it went quite that far back. On the other hand, I think more people than not realise that Ford did not invent the automobile. For another point of view, here is a Library of Congress page that puts its origins a bit earlier than Daimler, and notes that the subject of the first automobile is a bit fuzzy: http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/auto.html It mentions that Da Vinci made some designs for vehicles, and has a table that puts a steam-powered vehicle first in terms of actual inventions: ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot (1725-1804) 1769 STEAM / Built the first self propelled road vehicle (military tractor) for the French army: three wheeled, 2.5 mph. France ------------------------------------------------------------ I like cars. I'd probably enjoy learning auto mechanics. Why don't I...? Annemehr From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 16:25:10 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:25:10 -0000 Subject: Photos - Welsh Dresser Message-ID: Just out of curiousity I seached Wikipedia for 'Welsh dresser' and, much to my surprise, found nothing...NOTHING. However a quick search of Google produced this - Pine Welsh Dresser - US$1,035.30 http://www.goantiques.com/detail,pine-welsh-dresser,651653.html Nice Oak Welsh Dresser...brace yourself... US$13,500 (?6,781) http://www.listantiques.com/piece/106230 Very Nice Oak Welsh Dresser ...again...steady on...US$18,500 (?9,293) http://www.listantiques.com/piece/106206 So...if you actually have a Welsh dresser whether in the UK or in the USA, it is probably worth a fortune. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 16:27:44 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:27:44 -0000 Subject: Photos - Welsh Dresser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Just out of curiousity I seached Wikipedia for 'Welsh dresser' > and, much to my surprise, found nothing...NOTHING. > > However a quick search of Google produced this - > > Pine Welsh Dresser - US$1,035.30 > > http://www.goantiques.com/detail,pine-welsh-dresser,651653.html > > > ... bboyminn: Sorry to reply to my own post, but I had an after thought. Wouldn't most Americans most likely refer to this as a Buffet with a Hutch? Whatever... Steve/bboyminn From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 16:27:45 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:27:45 -0000 Subject: Now Cars - Gottlieb Daimler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Geoff [to Steve]: > You just got in before me because I've been intending to take > this one up during today. Annemehr: And you've just passed on the favor! :P Geoff: > First, I didn't post the joke you mention. It was Potioncat in > message 36273. > > Back to the subject. My sources suggest that the honours for > the first car go to Karl Benz in 1885 followed very closely by > Gottlieb Daimler in possibly the following year. > > It seems that the first US cars were produced by the Duryea > brothers in 1893. > > Course, we ought to take on board the first mechanically > propelled vehicle in which case the prize goes to Nicolas > Cugnot who built a steam powered machine in 1769. Annemehr: Well, you got in before me, but I claim points for citing a site. Want to call it even? ;) > > Anyone for a walk? > :-) > Anytime, anywhere the temperature is above 50F/10C Annemehr From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 17:04:38 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:04:38 -0000 Subject: Now Cars - Gottlieb Daimler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > ... > > > > But it is universally understood by those of us in-the-know, > > that Gottlieb Wilhelm Daimler invented and sold the first > > automobile. > > > Hey...I'm just saying. > > > > Steve/bboyminn > > Geoff: > ... > > Back to the subject. My sources suggest that the honours for > the first car go to Karl Benz in 1885 followed very closely > by Gottlieb Daimler in possibly the following year. > > It seems that the first US cars were produced by the Duryea > brothers in 1893. > > Course, we ought to take on board the first mechanically > propelled vehicle in which case the prize goes to Nicolas > Cugnot who built a steam powered machine in 1769. > > Anyone for a walk? > :-) > bboyminn: Very interesting, but it depends on how you define 'invent'. In many cases, things were invented then fell by the wayside lost in the annuls of history, only to be later invented by someone who knew what to do with the product and how to promote it. For me the Key is that Daimler formed a motor company and SOLD his first car on the open market. Though it should be noted from the Library of Congress site that Benz was issued a patent for his three-wheeled car. Since it was a three-wheeled vehicle, I'm sure there are some who will dispute whether or not it can even be classified as a 'car'. Today, most three-wheeled vehicles, regardless of size, are considered motorcycles. Still, Benz not only held the first patent on a car, but also held several patents relating to the design and manufacturing of petroleum powered engines. And upon reading further on Wikipedia, which has a nice long bio as well as several pictures of various vehicles, I must concede that with certainty Benz was first. Karl Benz - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Benz It seems Benz first commercially available vehicle were made available in 1887, though the company that made them first started production in 1885. He receive his patent on the automobile in 1886. Patent DRP-37435: "automobile fueled by gas". Thank's for the reminder of the Duryea brothers, I was aware of them, but it has slipped my mind. >From the photos, it looks like the Duryea vehicle was literally a horse-carriage without the horse. Still it is shown out on the road and running. I guess all this talk makes me wonder who holds the US Patent on the first 'horseless carriage', and further whether a separate unique Patent would be issue for the first petroleum powered carriage? Upon reading the Library of Congress page, I was please to see that WAY BACK in 1832, Robert Anderson from Scotland, has what was probably the first electric powered car. In closing, I repeat the link to the US Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/auto.html ...who knew? steve/bboyminn From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 17:10:04 2008 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:10:04 -0000 Subject: "Wifebeaters" (Was: Closets and Wardrobes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > Snow: > > > > For what it's worth, we used to call them muscle-man shirts. They > > showed off the appropriate bulging areas. > > > Carol: > Thanks, Snow. That's a lot better, but it might depend on when and > where that term was used. Can you give me a bit more background? But, > yes, the whole idea of the shirt relates to the young man's chest > muscles, so the term certainly fits. > > Carol, still looking for suggestions > Snow: I remember it dating back to the late 70s/early 80s. Guys would work out and then sport their freshly pumped muscles in those shirts. In fact, the movie Overboard with Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn is a very good example of the muscle man look, where he is holding both straps of his shirt sliding his hands up and down while he cynically portraits a "hick". The movie Rocky (first one) also shows the in-look for the muscle-man T. Hope this helps a bit. From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 17:22:17 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:22:17 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Potioncat: > Guys wear white or black beaters. All sorts of guys wear them, there > isn't any connotation. I asked if it was part of a particular look. Her > answer was that a gangster would wear his beater with low riding baggy > pants (most likely sweats) while a skater would wear his beater with > tight fiting pants. No, Geoff, I don't mean underwear, but I don't mean > trousers either Ali: Sweats, eh? Maybe I'm getting old, too. (Don't shoot me. I may 25, but I'm hitting old land for the "younger folks" - please don't shoot me.) I still recall the baggy pants as jeans, granted the jean materials were a softer cotton denim (whereas they were actual denim before) but they were jeans, not sweats. Per the "beaters" term, I've heard that as well. All somewhat interchangeable: beaters, wifebeaters, tanks/tank tops (not for men), camis/camisoles (not for men). Potioncat: > BTW, ganster and skater are styles, not necessarily people who are > gangsters or who really ride skateboards. Ali: Heh. Degrees of truth. "Skaters" are more likely to know how to ride a skateboard than "gangsters," who may or may not be "original gangster" - I never thought that people my age spoke our own language until just now. > Potioncat, who now hears the song "Skater Boy" playing in her head, > superimposed with the image of Edgar G. Robinson in a wife-beater. Ali: LOL!!! If I recall correctly, Avril Lavigne wore a white beater with baggy pants/jeans in that video (or a similar - I can't be bothered to follow her MVs), so I've got an image of Edgar G. Robinson's on Avril Lavigne's body. Hilarious!! From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 18:21:11 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:21:11 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > > Guys wear white or black beaters. > > ... I asked if it was part of a particular look. Her > > answer was that a gangster would wear his beater with low riding baggy > > pants (most likely sweats) while a skater would wear his beater > > with tight fiting pants. > Ali: > Sweats, eh? Maybe I'm getting old, too. ... > I still recall the baggy pants as jeans, granted the jean > materials were a softer cotton denim (whereas they were actual denim > before) but they were jeans, not sweats. Kemper now: They (and if we're talking urban language: gangstas, not gangsters) wear/wore baggy jeans as well as khakis (usually Dickies). (The bagginess was a style that, I think, was originally a look that came from hand-me-down pants from big brothers to little brothers.) Kemper From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Apr 29 19:03:05 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:03:05 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001b01c8aa2b$a7d61540$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [mskeshaffer]: | I always thought the term was mildly derogatory. [Lee]: Mildly? Hmmph! IMHO it shouldn't be allowed as it sends a terrible message. Lee From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 19:40:06 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:40:06 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Ali: > Sweats, eh? Maybe I'm getting old, too. (Don't shoot me. I may 25, > but I'm hitting old land for the "younger folks" - please don't shoot > me.) I still recall the baggy pants as jeans, granted the jean > materials were a softer cotton denim (whereas they were actual denim > before) but they were jeans, not sweats. Potioncat: I think you're right. My kids wear sweats. Great bulky baggy ones. Sigh. Sure beats incredibly short shorts. Or the battles about them. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 29 20:52:30 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:52:30 -0000 Subject: Now Cars - Gottlieb Daimler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > Annemehr: > Well, you got in before me, but I claim points for citing a site. Geoff: And you should have bonus points for sighting a site to cite. And of course when you finish, you're ex-citing. :-) Please miss, can I have a House point for the worst pun today? Annemehr: > Want to call it even? ;) Geoff: Well, it's not odd to do that so... pourquoi pas? From mygroupmail at ournewsgroup.net Mon Apr 28 15:15:42 2008 From: mygroupmail at ournewsgroup.net (Max) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:15:42 +0700 Subject: This has to be the height of stupidity and insensitivity! Message-ID: Dear Members I know this is 'off topic' but you just have to read the letter I found in one of the google groups I am a member of. Its totally outrageous!, can you imagine that you father is in the army working on the front lines in a war, then the school where his children are, do something like this...READ the letter below, you will be SHOCKED! I think everyone should write to the school, and give them a piece of their minds (as I have done). Regards Graham "I never knew finding freebies was so much fun" http://groups.google.com/group/freebiefinder/ READ THIS! Message: school suspends soldier's child for taking call dad's from Iraq Published Today at 9:35 p.m. Parent Dish by Roger Sinasohn Apr 16th 2008 Master Sgt. Morris Hill is serving his country in Iraq, a long way away from his beloved sons back in Texas. Luckily, these days, we have the means for people on opposite sides of the planet to talk to each other in real time, almost without regard to where they actually are. We have cell phones. Unfortunately, the only time Hill could call his son Brandon was during the school day -- a time when students are generally forbidden from using their cell phones. It would seem, however, that this situation would count as extraordinary circumstances and an exception could be made, but administrators disagree. Brandon was suspended for taking the call. "He called me during class, because that's the only time that he could," Brandon said. "I answered the call as I was walking out of class. The teacher followed me out and said, 'Oh what are you doing?' I said my dad was calling from Iraq, and I know he needs to talk to me." Brandon was sent to the office and given a two-day suspension. The odd part is that the father had apparently made an arrangement in advance with the assistant principal to allow his sons to receive calls from him. "He had spoken with Mr. Fletcher," said Pat Hill, the boys' mother. "He thought there was an agreement understood that if he called either Joshua or Brandon at school, that everything was fine." "If this would have been the last phone call from my husband, and he's in trouble for it and then has to deal with something happening to his dad that would be even harder," Mrs. Hill added. "These schools have to stop and realize, especially when you are in a military community, we support our soldiers, we support our troops. What about them when they are in Iraq trying to reach their family?" Mrs. Hill is trying to get the suspension removed from her son's record, but the school says the matter is closed. Whether or not you support the United States' actions overseas, you've got to understand that the soldiers are doing their job and that they and their families are still people -- people who care very much about each other and have a need to stay in contact. It seems to me that the school could be more understanding on that point.Let Copras Cove high School know what Veterans and Patriotic Americans think about their ignorant "rules." And that we would like to see "the matter reopened" so that there is not a suspension on Brandon's school record! Copperas CoveHigh School 400 S. 25th Street Copperas Cove, Tx, 76522 Phone: 254- 547-2534 Fax 254- 547-9870 Click below to E-mail Dr. Carol Saxenian- Principal saxenianc at ccisd.com Jimmy Shuck- Associate Principal jimmy at ccisd.com Richard Fletcher- Assistant Principal fletcherr at ccisd.com Genie Jhingoor- Assistant Principal jhingoorg at ccisd.com Cynthia Kostroun- Assistant Principal kostrounc at ccisd.com PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ALL PATRIOTS! Call or E-Mail the above, Tell them to take the suspension OFF of Brandon Hill's records!Please take a fee minutes to contact these poor misguided educators. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 21:12:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:12:13 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters (Was: Closets and Wardrobes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "mskeshaffer" wrote: > > Here is a pictureof a "wifebeater" > http://www.hanes.com/Hanes/Products/Men-Hanes/Men_ShopByCategory- > Hanes/Men_Tshirts-Hanes/Men_Tshirts_Bestsellers-Hanes/H7996.aspx > > I always thought the term was mildly derogatory. Those that wear > this as outerwear probably use the term with pride, but most of us > see the use of this shirt (alone, not as an undergarment) as a style > common of lower class, perhaps "trailer trash", where education is > minimal and domestic disputes prevalent. I have only seen them in > white. For what its worth, I am from California. Carol reponds: I can't get the link to work even by cutting and pasting the second part, but here's what I found when I did a quick search using "Hanes wifebeater" (no quotation marks) as my search term: http://www.bobfromaccounting.com/2_25_02/wifebeaterarticle.html "Mesh Shirt named Official Undergarment of Domestic Violence"! And "mildly derogatory" doesn't seem sufficient or even applicable given that shirts are being *marketed* using this term. I haven't come to any conclusion yet, but I appreciate everyone's responses and hope to see more. Carol, noting that the characters in this manuscript are not trailer trash and live in Florida From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 21:25:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:25:16 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: <545681.94744.qm@web53012.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alex Hogan wrote: > > That name for that shirt has been around for 30 or more years. I have always thought of it as a lower-class white trailer trash kind of thing. Eeeew. Carol responds: IOW, since my young author is trying to create a sexy image for her twenty-three-year-old male character, she should use a different term? What term should she use that won't be offensive or conjure up the wrong image? Carol, who needs to know how to advise her client From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 21:53:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:53:31 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ali: > Tank tops are what women wear. They're generally regarded as the spaghetti strap contraptions. Though I've seen wifebeaters referred to as tank tops, it doesn't change the fact that women are generally the only ones who wear tank tops. > > However, I would follow your instinct to change the color, if only because men's wifebeaters are rarely anything but white. Designer wifebeaters (yeah, that's not wrong) come in a million colours and sometimes have crazy designs. If your author is 22, she (or her character) might be the Urban Outfitter type, and her wifebeaters are shorter, more fitted, and meant to be worn somewhat layered (aka throw an unbuttons shirt over it) or completely by itself. > > > > Carol, who thinks that the author chose "wifebeater" because she's about twenty-two and hasn't considered the connotations of the word > > Ali: > What can I say? We're a strange bunch, us 20-somethings (I'm 25). The term wifebeater, by the time it got to us, had lost all ethnic/whatever connotation. It's still considered somewhat "redneck" a la King of the Hills for those who watch American TV) but not offensive. Carol again: How about the connotation of a man who beats his wife, the literal meaning of the word? Doesn't it imply a false standard of masculinity (male domination and violence)? That, not the ethnic origin or "trailer trash"/"redneck" connotation, is what troubles me. (And to market a product with that name to women and kids and have them or their parents buy it, thinking nothing of what the product is called, is highly disturbing to me. I certainly wouldn't have bought any such thing when I was eighteen or twenty or twenty-five (or any age), nor would I have dated a boy or man who wore one and referred to it by that term. I did, however, buy and wear tank tops, as did some young men of my acquaintance, but I don't remember what the boys called them. If the term was around thirty years ago, and I'm not doubting anyone's word here, why have I never heard it until I read this manuscript and why isn't it in the dictionary? It must not be a respectable term, or maybe it wasn't respectable until marketing blurred the actual meaning of the term. Anyway, thanks for your perspective, Ali. It's probably similar to my clients. Please forgive me, but I get the idea that your generation just hasn't given the word any thought. (That in itself disturbs me, actually. And it's odd that the advocates of political correctness, so ready to criticize old-fashioned terms like "Indian giver," haven't jumped on this one as well.) I've been checking the Google shopping links online, and it seems as if "Wifebeater" may be a brand name. At any rate, some of the shirts advertised have sleeves, and there was even a sleeveless version marketed as "a cute lil wifebeater for kids"! And here's Justin Timberlake in a black "wifebeater," more or less the sort of image our young author is trying to portray: http://images.marketworks.com/hi/55/55265/pst2204jus.jpg Anyone have teenage or college-age sons who wear the things? Carol, still looking for another word to describe a men's sleeveless A-shirt (and few people use that term, to my knowledge) in a color other than white From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 21:57:15 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:57:15 -0000 Subject: This has to be the height of stupidity and insensitivity! Message-ID: --- Max wrote: > > > Dear Members > > ... > Its totally outrageous!, can you imagine that you father is > in the army..., then the school where his children are, do > something like this... ... SHOCKED! > > Regards > Graham > > > READ THIS! > > Message: school suspends soldier's child for taking call dad's > from Iraq > ... > Apr 16th 2008 > Master Sgt. Morris Hill is serving his country in Iraq, ... > > Unfortunately, the only time Hill could call his son Brandon > was during the school day -- ... Brandon was suspended for > taking the call. > > "He called me during class, because that's the only time that > he could," Brandon said. "I answered the call as I was walking > out of class. The teacher followed me out and said, 'Oh what > are you doing?' I said my dad was calling from Iraq, and I know > he needs to talk to me." Brandon was sent to the office and > given a two-day suspension. > > The odd part is that the father had apparently made an > arrangement in advance with the assistant principal to allow > his sons to receive calls from him. "He had spoken with Mr. > Fletcher," said Pat Hill, the boys' mother. "He thought there > was an agreement understood that if he called either Joshua > or Brandon at school, that everything was fine." > ... bboyminn: This sounds like a clear cut case of 'Zero Tolerance' which I have always taken to mean zero effort, zero brains, and zero common sense. First, you should note that schools are absolutely resistant to ever changing there mind, even when proven beyond any doubt that the are absolutely wrong. It has to do with authority. They feel that if they admit they are wrong, it undermines their authority and that may be true, but it VERY MUCH emphasizes their stupidity and that most certainly undermines their authority. If the assistant principal agreed to this, then that should settle it. However, if in disciplining the boy, he was overruled by someone above him, then again, it a matter of getting an authority figure to admit a mistake or to reverse a decision (not matter how stupid), and that just doesn't happen. You could take the matter before the school board, or you could threaten them with a lawyer. One possible 'lawyer' might be to contact the American Civil Liberties Union and see if they are interested, or at least see if they will write a nasty letter or make a phone call on your behalf. Bad as it is, that is the life of a school kid. The world they live in is far from a democracy. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 21:59:56 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:59:56 -0000 Subject: This has to be the height of stupidity and insensitivity! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Steve" wrote: > > --- Max wrote: > > > > > > Dear Members > > > > ... > > Its totally outrageous!, can you imagine that you father is > > in the army..., then the school where his children are, do > > something like this... ... SHOCKED! > > > > Regards > > Graham > > > > > > READ THIS! > > > > Message: school suspends soldier's child for taking call dad's > > from Iraq > > ... > > Apr 16th 2008 > > Master Sgt. Morris Hill is serving his country in Iraq, ... > > > > Unfortunately, the only time Hill could call his son Brandon > > was during the school day -- ... Brandon was suspended for > > taking the call. > > > > ... > bboyminn: Oh yeah, and about that horrible blemish on this kids Permanent Record. Don't worry about it. In the entire history of the modern world, no employer or college has every looked at anyone's permanent record. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 22:01:30 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:01:30 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters (Was: Closets and Wardrobes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol reponds: > > I can't get the link to work even by cutting and pasting the second > part, but here's what I found when I did a quick search using "Hanes > wifebeater" (no quotation marks) as my search term: > > http://www.bobfromaccounting.com/2_25_02/wifebeaterarticle.html > > "Mesh Shirt named Official Undergarment of Domestic Violence"! Potioncat: Oh no! That is not what Sarah wears! I don't know what that is! Oh dear! Try this: Go to Hanes.com Then look for men, T-shirts and choose this: Hanes? Classics Ribbed Tank. I was going to give you the link, but it's the same one you have that didn't work. This is a beater. Obviously, Hanes has chosen to ignore that bit of slang in its ads. I'd suggest looking at different underwear sites to see what they call the garment. You know better than I do, but if the rest of the narration fits the style, beater might be OK. I don't think wife-beater is advisable. Potioncat imagines a line something like, "Mary Sue fanned herself as she gazed at the glistening muscles through the damp Hanes(TM) Classics Ribbed Tank. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 22:16:58 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:16:58 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat: > And while we're on kitchens. What is an Aga? > > Geoff: > A large stove for heating and producing hot water with side ovens for baking. They are usually solid fuel, coal or wood although there are oil-fired installations nowadays. Carol: No naural gas or electric heating, then? Geoff: > In message 36281, Carol (wot, `er again?) wrote: > > Then you're the person I need to consult! The manuscript I'm editing now calls a man's sleeveless tank-top shirt (what the Brits, I think, would call a "vest") a "wifebeater." > Geoff: > I must lead a sheltered existence. Like Lee, I've never heard the term before. Carol: Nor have I, which is why I started the thread. Geoff: In UK speak, a vest is an item of underwear between the shirt and the body ? if you wear one. (I haven't for several years). > > Sometimes also called a singlet if it's the sleeveless type such as runners wear. Carol: "Singlet" might do, though it's also used to refer to the one-piece garment that wrestlers wear. I think that "singlet" for a men's sleeveless shirt might suggest something a bit looser and more like an athletic jersey than a so-called wifebeater. I did, BTW, see the term "tank" used to refer to such tops. Don't young Englishmen wear such things as outer garments? If so, what do they call them? Geoff: > Interestingly, this word ["lavatory'] has dropped out of UK English recently. You rarely hear it used in conversation. And in public, where you used to look for the sign "Public Lavatories" ? or the more delicate "Public Conveniences" ? now you look for plain and simple "Toilets". Carol: Oh, those pragmatic brits. I guess it's an indication that washing your hands in a lavatory (sink) is only incidental to the primary purpose of that room. But whether you call it a lavatory or a toilet, it appears that the same term is used for the room and the wash basin or "porcelain fixture," as someone delicately called it, in British English. Metonymy, that's what it is, like "crown" for the queen or "head" of cattle. But that still doesn't answer my original question, which is how the room that Moaning Myrtle lives in, as opposed to the toilet that she dives into to get to the U-bend (or S-bend, in HBP), is called. the U.S. edition refers to it (inaccurately) as "Moaning Myrtle's bathroom." What term is used in the UK edition? Carol, who should probably do Catlady-style posts, too, but likes to stay with one topic per post > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 22:26:50 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:26:50 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat: > And now from a younger point of view. My daughter (18)says the garment is called "beater"---they've dropped the wife. As in, "Mom, did you wash my pink beater?" Girls also call them tank tops because it is the same garment in different colors. Girls wear both the actual men's undergarment and tanktops. > > Guys wear white or black beaters. All sorts of guys wear them, there isn't any connotation. Carol: Thanks, Potioncat, and tell your daughter thanks, too. What about your sons? And men only wear black or white? There goes my idea of changing the color to gray. Still, "black beater" sounds much better than "black wifebeater." (The only problem would be conveying the meaning to older, more sheltered readers, like Lee, Geoff, and me. Then, again, how likely are we to be reading a romance novel aimed at much younger readers as anything but a manuscript to be edited?) Potioncat: > Who would have thought that a humble undergarment worn by working class men would become a versatile fashion accessary. So the bigger question becomes, would you keep your beater in the chest of drawers, or the wardrobe? Carol: Love your sense of humor, Potioncat. I wonder if "Accio Potioncat!" would zoom you to Arizona to keep me company and cheer me up when I become frustrated over questions like this (or simple mechanical errors; this writer is addicted to comma splices). > > Carol, if this book is ever published, I want to read it. Just because of all our input for the one word. Carol: If it's published, I'll let you know. Heck, I'll request my own free copy! Carol, thanking Potioncat for the input and the laugh From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 22:30:56 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:30:56 -0000 Subject: OMG! (was Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol, whose next editing project is from a woman in Scotland, so I may need to post more Britspeak questions here in the next few weeks > Potioncat: > OMG! How did this go by us? We've been so busy discussing wife-beaters that Carol's news went right under the radar! Carol, you're so smart. When this becomes public knowledge and we ask, "Why didn't you tell us?" you'll be able to say, "But I did tell you." > > Look everybody, at the remainder of the post above. Carol is editing JKR's next book! > Carol: Well, the author's name *is* Joanne. Really. But not Rowling, unfortunately. And she *is* from Scotland. Not sure whether it's Edinburgh, though. Oh, and the project *is* a novel. :-) Carol, who would ask for a lot more money than she's getting if the author were really JKR! From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 22:42:56 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:42:56 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > Anyone have teenage or college-age sons who wear the things? > > Carol, still looking for another word to describe a men's sleeveless > A-shirt (and few people use that term, to my knowledge) in a color > other than white Kemper now: I work with males (and females) between 12-22. Many experience time within the justice system, mental health system, and/or drug/alcohol programs. The white, tank, A-shirt is referred to as a wifebeater, no matter how often they are asked to refer to it as an undershirt or tank or A-shirt. It is becoming a part of the lexicon (not hp-lexicon, that's a different, long thread... though, I could see Ludo wearing one.) "black wifebeater" jolts this reader. It should just be "wifebeater" or "black sleeveless, nearly shoulderless tee". fwiw, Kemper From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 22:46:42 2008 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:46:42 -0000 Subject: OMG! (was Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > Well, the author's name *is* Joanne. Really. But not Rowling, > unfortunately. And she *is* from Scotland. Not sure whether it's > Edinburgh, though. Oh, and the project *is* a novel. :-) > > Carol, who would ask for a lot more money than she's getting if the > author were really JKR! > Kemper now: If I were JKR and writing a new book, I would write under a psuedonym. Using her first name would be something tricky I imagine her doing. Maybe. Kemper From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 23:02:58 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:02:58 -0000 Subject: Now Cars - Gottlieb Daimler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > > Annemehr: > > Well, you got in before me, but I claim points for citing a site. > > Geoff: > And you should have bonus points for sighting a site to cite. And of > course when you finish, you're ex-citing. > :-) > > Please miss, can I have a House point for the worst pun today? Annemehr: Triple bonus points! And an extra one and a half for the double- entendre in the last one. > > Annemehr: > > Want to call it even? ;) > > Geoff: > Well, it's not odd to do that so... pourquoi pas? > Well, I call that a prime example of a positive attitude - but I calculate your bonus total is greater than mine. Annemehr From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 29 23:14:28 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:14:28 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Potioncat: > > And while we're on kitchens. What is an Aga? > > > > Geoff (earlier): > > A large stove for heating and producing hot water with side ovens > for baking. They are usually solid fuel, coal or wood although there > are oil-fired installations nowadays. > > Carol: > No naural gas or electric heating, then? Geoff: It is essentially designed as a solid fuel stove; most, as I said would be coal or wood-burning. Like Hoover or Thermos flasks, the proprietary name Aga has become a generic name for this type of equipment. We took out an old Rayburn - which is a similar British designed unit when we came to our present house because it was clapped out. (Agas are originally from Sweden although they are very popular in the UK, especially in out of town places.) > Geoff (earlier): > In UK speak, a vest is an item of underwear between the shirt and the > body ? if you wear one. (I haven't for several years). > > > > Sometimes also called a singlet if it's the sleeveless type such as > runners wear. > > Carol: > "Singlet" might do, though it's also used to refer to the one-piece > garment that wrestlers wear. I think that "singlet" for a men's > sleeveless shirt might suggest something a bit looser and more like an > athletic jersey than a so-called wifebeater. I did, BTW, see the term > "tank" used to refer to such tops. Don't young Englishmen wear such > things as outer garments? If so, what do they call them? Geoff: I'm sorry, I don't quite follow your drift in the last sentence. > Geoff (earlier): > > Interestingly, this word ["lavatory'] has dropped out of UK English > recently. You rarely hear it used in conversation. And in public, > where you used to look for the sign "Public Lavatories" ? or the more > delicate "Public Conveniences" ? now you look for plain and simple > "Toilets". > > Carol: > Oh, those pragmatic brits. I guess it's an indication that washing > your hands in a lavatory (sink) is only incidental to the primary > purpose of that room. But whether you call it a lavatory or a toilet, > it appears that the same term is used for the room and the wash basin > or "porcelain fixture," as someone delicately called it, in British > English. Geoff: I wouldn't agree with you on that. I think the fact that the origin of the word lavatory is related to washing is lost on most people. Lavatory or toilet or loo refers both to the room /and/ the equipment. Carol: > But that still doesn't answer my original question, > which is how the room that Moaning Myrtle lives in, as opposed to the > toilet that she dives into to get to the U-bend (or S-bend, in HBP), > is called. the U.S. edition refers to it (inaccurately) as "Moaning > Myrtle's bathroom." What term is used in the UK edition? Geoff: The British editions also talk about Moaning Myrtle's bathroom. In the films, this is portrayed as I would expect a communal (women's) toilet to appear with a row of WCs and handbasins. I'm not familiar with the layout in a place such as a public school where there might indeed also be a number of individual bathrooms (UK bathrooms ) as well. From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Apr 29 23:27:52 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:27:52 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001c01c8aa50$a5856eb0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Martha]: | I think that this is probably a generational thing. I'm 43, and | you're right- I think it has lost its negative connotation as the | years went by. They were definitely trailer-trash apparel when I was | your age. Funny how the name stuck, though! [Lee]: Well, I'm 47 and never heard that term before now. Honestly, I would feel most uncomfortable walking into a shop and asking for a "Wifebeater"; it would distress me no end! It sort of amazes me that in this day and age of political correctness such a nomer would be allowed to stand unchallenged. Cheers, Lee Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 23:40:32 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:40:32 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Geoff (earlier): > > In UK speak, a vest is an item of underwear between the shirt and the > > body ? if you wear one. (I haven't for several years). > > > > > > Sometimes also called a singlet if it's the sleeveless type such as > > runners wear. Potioncat: To answer your question Carol, my 19 year old doesn't wear one. I've never seen a young man calling on Sarah wearing one. I think the places I've seen them most is in Ads and on some TV shows. And, speaking of TV shows... Seems even in England there's a bit of lower-class stereotype to it. Here's a link to a Brit in one. Thank you PBS, my source of most things British. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pforret/279062127/ Although the shirts in question on this side of the pond, have wider shoulder straps. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 23:43:19 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:43:19 -0000 Subject: The AGA Saga (Was Re: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Potioncat: > > > And while we're on kitchens. What is an Aga? > > Carol: > > No naural gas or electric heating, then? > > Geoff: > It is essentially designed as a solid fuel stove; most, as I > said would be coal or wood-burning. Goddlefrood: My parents have and had 3 AGAs altogether. Two have been gas fired and one electric powered. They were proper AGAs, not imitations, but were converted to more modern technologies. Originally AGAs were wood or coal-burning. That is no longer the case and they work just as well on gas and / or electricity. AGA is the intials of the full title, that being Aktiebolaget Gas Accumulator. I've never had one as they would be far too hot for the tropics. One site that may be of interest is: http://www.aga-rayburn.co.uk/ > Geoff: > The British editions also talk about Moaning Myrtle's bathroom. > In the films, this is portrayed as I would expect a communal > (women's) toilet to appear with a row of WCs and handbasins. Goddlefrood: Women's toilet? There's no such thing, they're powder rooms ;-) From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 30 00:27:30 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:27:30 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002001c8aa58$fa291720$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Carol quests]: | What term is used in the UK edition? [Lee]: Uh--"bathrom." Surprise, I know, but that's what was used in COS-BE. Lee :-) (Who had gotten an audio copy of the UK books as a rare and special gift.) From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 30 00:35:53 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:35:53 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] OMG! (was Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101c8aa5a$259a8000$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | > Carol: | > Well, the author's name *is* Joanne. Really. But not Rowling, | > unfortunately. And she *is* from Scotland. Not sure whether it's | > Edinburgh, though. Oh, and the project *is* a novel. :-) | > | > Carol, who would ask for a lot more money than she's getting if the | > author were really JKR! | > | | Kemper now: | If I were JKR and writing a new book, I would write under a | psuedonym. | Using her first name would be something tricky I imagine her doing. [Lee]: Ah--indeed. Oh, Carol...Carol...Carol... Now we all know you don't want to flaunt your fame here, now, don't we... No, no, that wouldn't be advisable just yet... Lee :-) (Taking off her "Gilderoy Lockhart" hat) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 30 01:49:00 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:49:00 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > IOW, since my young author is trying to create a sexy image for her > twenty-three-year-old male character, she should use a different term? > What term should she use that won't be offensive or conjure up the > wrong image? > > Carol, who needs to know how to advise her client Magpie: I would think that if the character is 23 the name would be appropriate for her intended audience. You can always point out that some people are offended by the term and let her decide. I assume she's using it "correctly" in terms of this is what it would be called by her characters and random people she knows, and we don't know if she's ever thought out the name. Why not just drop the color entirely, pointing out that the two words together sound like you're referring to a person? It's kind of classic Mary-Sue author to over-describe everyone's clothes. -m From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 30 03:23:33 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:23:33 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301c8aa71$9237dca0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Interestingly, I was just talking to a friend who is 25 years old and I asked him what he would ask for if he was going to buy one of those sleeveless shirts. He responded that he would ask for "an A-Shirt." When I told him what we were discussing, he told me that the "wifebeater" term was slang, which he didn't prefer to use, and preferred to call it by its proper name. I found that interesting. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 04:18:09 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:18:09 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carol: > How about the connotation of a man who beats his wife, the literal > meaning of the word? Doesn't it imply a false standard of masculinity > (male domination and violence)? That, not the ethnic origin or > "trailer trash"/"redneck" connotation, is what troubles me. SNIP > Anyway, thanks for your perspective, Ali. It's probably similar to my > clients. Please forgive me, but I get the idea that your generation > just hasn't given the word any thought. Ali: I'm going to try to not sound snide (because I'm not being snide), but what does the connotation have to do with it? A wifebeater, the object, is a shirt. A wife beater, the person, can (and, in this day and age, many times does) wear suits and other very respectable clothing. In fact, I would gather that the perpetuating myth is that men who abuse their wives are rednecks and prone to wearing things like wifebeaters. And while I think you're right in that most people haven't given the term thought, I think people of my generation who have given it thought have also decided that it isn't worth it to worry about the connotation of the name of a tee when the name is such a part of the vernacular - also, I don't know how common my experience is but the term has offended no one I've come in contact with before (meaning people my age and their parents). I mean, Lee's friend is right. The term is a slang term, one that is extremely common. If your author/her character is someone in their 20s and referring to someone in his 20s, it makes very little sense to not use the slang term unless the character is one who specifically does not use slangs. (And I'm pretty certain that the main romance reader demographics will not find that term offensive - having had to do the research for a business plan a few years back, if I recall correctly, the big portion of the folks are right around my age and above - professional women, I think around 25-32, with the next group up being women in their mid-30s.) I think that Magpie's suggestion of taking out the colour altogether is best (but then, that's probably because, if I were the author, I would vehemently argue for the authenticity of keeping the term wifebeater). My two cents. (Sorry if I sounded mean/snide/whatever since I honestly was trying not to be - can't guess how that came across, though, so I'm just making apologies now.) ~Ali From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 04:23:03 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:23:03 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: This has to be the height of stupidity and insensitivity! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bboyminn: > Oh yeah, and about that horrible blemish on this kids Permanent > Record. Don't worry about it. In the entire history of the > modern world, no employer or college has every looked at > anyone's permanent record. Put it on his credit report, though, and the boy is ruined for the next decade. :) Per the story/article, I think the issue is resolved. I recall reading somewhere that the blemish on the boy's permanent record will be expunged at the beginning of the fall semester. ~Ali From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 04:50:36 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:50:36 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat, > > In the meantime, I'm trying very hard not to imagine Neville wearing an American jumper and tank top. > Carol: Or a camisole, right, Lee? Carol, winking at Lee (Storm) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 04:55:15 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:55:15 -0000 Subject: Now Cars - Gottlieb Daimler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Steve wrote: > I know this because I came across it as an obscure fact when > I was in high school. Later on a test, the question was asked > 'Who invented the Automobile?', and I put Gottlieb Daimler, > even though I knew the teacher was expecting me to put 'Henry > Ford'. > > Naturally, I was marked wrong. So, I brought the teacher proof > that Daimler had his car on the market first, but the teacher > refused to change the grade. That's when I learn that teachers > are stubborn and unyielding, and that life is usually unfair. Carol: thanks for the information on the inventor of the automobil; I'd have put the "right" answer and been wrong. But not all teachers are "stubborn and unyielding." Some of us, maybe, some of the time. Carol, speaking as a former college English teacher who has had both excellent and horrible teachers in her time From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 05:13:18 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:13:18 -0000 Subject: "Wifebeaters" (Was: Closets and Wardrobes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Snow: > > I remember it dating back to the late 70s/early 80s. Guys would work out and then sport their freshly pumped muscles in those shirts. > > In fact, the movie Overboard with Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn is a very good example of the muscle man look, where he is holding both straps of his shirt sliding his hands up and down while he cynically portraits a "hick". > > Carol: "Muscle shirts"! That's what we used to call them, only they weren't quite as skimpy as "beaters." And check this out, everyone: It's the Lucky 13 Skull Stars Logo Black Muscle Tank Beater Shirt! Unfortunately, Amazon won't let me link to the page, but here's the thumbnail from Google images: http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZOM4wpeRtOR-VM:http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21MXA3V62FL._AA160_.jpg Carol, obviously not intending to suggest that term to her client but considering "beater," "tank," and "muscle shirt" as alternatives to "wifebeater" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 05:27:49 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:27:49 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters (Was: Closets and Wardrobes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > here's what I found when I did a quick search using "Hanes > > wifebeater" (no quotation marks) as my search term: > > > > http://www.bobfromaccounting.com/2_25_02/wifebeaterarticle.html > > > > "Mesh Shirt named Official Undergarment of Domestic Violence"! > > Potioncat: > Oh no! That is not what Sarah wears! I don't know what that is! Oh > dear! > > Try this: > Go to Hanes.com Then look for men, T-shirts and choose this: Hanes? > Classics Ribbed Tank. I was going to give you the link, but it's the > same one you have that didn't work. This is a beater. Obviously, > Hanes has chosen to ignore that bit of slang in its ads. > > Carol: Oops. I didn't mean to suggest that the thing that man is wearing is a wifebeater. The article suggests, whether tongue in cheek, I don't know, that the mesh thing has replaced the "wifebeater" as the official grament for domestic abusers. It's just the first link I found when I did a search for "Hanes wifebeater," and it did suggest a connection between the garment and the crime. BTW, if Hanes uses "tank" in their ads for men, maybe that's the term to go with. Carol, heading to Hanes.com with her fan already blowing because it's about 80 degrees F outside at 10:26 p.m. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 05:29:12 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:29:12 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters (Was: Closets and Wardrobes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > here's what I found when I did a quick search using "Hanes > > wifebeater" (no quotation marks) as my search term: > > > > http://www.bobfromaccounting.com/2_25_02/wifebeaterarticle.html > > > > "Mesh Shirt named Official Undergarment of Domestic Violence"! > > Potioncat: > Oh no! That is not what Sarah wears! I don't know what that is! Oh > dear! > > Try this: > Go to Hanes.com Then look for men, T-shirts and choose this: Hanes? > Classics Ribbed Tank. I was going to give you the link, but it's the > same one you have that didn't work. This is a beater. Obviously, > Hanes has chosen to ignore that bit of slang in its ads. > > Carol: Oops. I didn't mean to suggest that the thing that man is wearing is a wifebeater. The article suggests, whether tongue in cheek, I don't know, that the mesh thing has replaced the "wifebeater" as the official grament for domestic abusers. It's just the first link I found when I did a search for "Hanes wifebeater," and it did suggest a connection between the garment and the crime. BTW, if Hanes uses "tank" in their ads for men, maybe that's the term to go with. Carol, heading to Hanes.com with her fan already blowing because it's about 80 degrees F outside at 10:26 p.m. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 05:39:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:39:16 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > Anyone have teenage or college-age sons who wear the things? > > > > Carol, still looking for another word to describe a men's sleeveless A-shirt (and few people use that term, to my knowledge) in a color other than white > > Kemper now: > I work with males (and females) between 12-22. Many experience time within the justice system, mental health system, and/or drug/alcohol programs. The white, tank, A-shirt is referred to as a wifebeater, no> matter how often they are asked to refer to it as an undershirt or tank or A-shirt. It is becoming a part of the lexicon (not hp-lexicon, that's a different, long thread... though, I could see Ludo wearing one.) > > "black wifebeater" jolts this reader. It should just be "wifebeater" or "black sleeveless, nearly shoulderless tee". > Carol: Thanks, Kemper. "Black wifebeater" jolts me, too. However, since "black, sleeveless, nearly shoulderless tee" (really an A-shirt, s you say) doesn't exactly roll off the tongue (or keyboard), I think I'll keep looking for other altenatives. Also, the client and her characters are just ordinary middle-class Americans, not likely to spend time in the justice system or the mental health system. So far, I like "tank" or "muscle shirt" best. BTW, I made a slight blunder referring to another portion of American men's underwear in a recent post. I said that they wear briefs or shorts. That should be briefs or boxers (aka boxer shorts). Carol, wondering what Kemper himself would call a "wifebeater" if he wore one From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 05:45:11 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:45:11 -0000 Subject: OMG! (was Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > > Well, the author's name *is* Joanne. Really. But not Rowling, unfortunately. And she *is* from Scotland. Not sure whether it's Edinburgh, though. Oh, and the project *is* a novel. :-) > > > > Carol, who would ask for a lot more money than she's getting if the author were really JKR! > > > > Kemper now: > If I were JKR and writing a new book, I would write under a psuedonym. Using her first name would be something tricky I imagine her doing. Carol: Nah. I've worked with this client before. She has a PhD in psychology, and her recently published first book, soon to be available in the UK, was on the power of positive thinking in finding love (and whatever else you want in life). I can't comment on it here in a public forum, but if anyone wants the title and the author's full name, you can offlist me. And JKR wouldn't be going through an editing service to have her novel copyedited. It would be done in-house by the publisher, at no charge to JKR. Carol, realizing that everyone is joking here but wanting to make sure she's not misleading anybody From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 05:56:27 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:56:27 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: Don't young Englishmen wear such things as outer garments? If so, what do they call them? > > Geoff: > I'm sorry, I don't quite follow your drift in the last sentence. Carol again: Sorry to be unclear. I meant, don't boys and young men in the UK wear the sleeveless "wifebeater"-type shirts that we've been discussing (as shirts, not undershirts)? Evidently, they don't call them "wifebeaters." What term do they use? > Carol: > > But that still doesn't answer my original question, which is how the room that Moaning Myrtle lives in, as opposed to the toilet that she dives into to get to the U-bend (or S-bend, in HBP), is called. the U.S. edition refers to it (inaccurately) as "Moaning Myrtle's bathroom." What term is used in the UK edition? > > Geoff: > The British editions also talk about Moaning Myrtle's bathroom. In the films, this is portrayed as I would expect a communal (women's) toilet to appear with a row of WCs and handbasins. Carol: The description of the room in the books also sounds to me like what you would call a "toilet" rather than a "bathroom." After all, Myrtle plunges into a toilet in the American sense, not a bathtub or shower. Very odd that JKR would use that word in that sense. The prefects' bathroom has a gigantic tub, not stalls with toilets, IIRC. Or does it have both? And what about the boys' "bathroom" that Draco is crying in in HBP? Is that "bathroom" in the UK edition as well? Carol, who meant "natural," not "naural," gas in her earlier post, but her finger missed the "t" key From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 06:06:27 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:06:27 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat: > To answer your question Carol, my 19 year old doesn't wear one. I've never seen a young man calling on Sarah wearing one. I think the places I've seen them most is in Ads and on some TV shows. And, speaking of TV shows... > > Seems even in England there's a bit of lower-class stereotype to it. Here's a link to a Brit in one. Thank you PBS, my source of most things British. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/pforret/279062127/ > > Although the shirts in question on this side of the pond, have wider shoulder straps. > Carol: No, I don't mean an old-fashioned white undershirt. "Wifebeaters" are sleeveless shirts worn as outer garments by young men who think they're "cool." The basic design is the same as that of a vest-type undershirt, but the fabric is more like that of a colored T-shirt (I think). Anyway, I've included a couple of links in earlier posts, so I won't add any more here. It's not exactly the Marlon Brando look (or the portly Brit in your lind); it's more updated--and black, apparently, is the only other basic color for men. Carol, who thinks that if you show your kids the photo of Justin Timberlake, they'll know what I'm talking about From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 30 06:08:18 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:08:18 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c8aa88$9657a6a0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | Potioncat, | > | > In the meantime, I'm trying very hard not to imagine Neville wearing | an American jumper and tank top. | > | Carol: | | Or a camisole, right, Lee? | | Carol, winking at Lee (Storm) [Lee]: Hmm--what a picture! Now, remember the scene in the GOF movie where, after McGonagall teaches the dance lesson, Neville is dancing about? How'd you think he'd look in a tutu? Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 06:10:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:10:25 -0000 Subject: The AGA Saga (Was Re: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: - > Goddlefrood: > > Women's toilet? There's no such thing, they're powder rooms ;-) Carol: That's what they were called in the U.s. in the 1950s? But what about the girls' loos at Hogwarts? Eleven-year-olds wouldn't powder their noses. Well, who knows what eleven-year-olds would do these days. Carol, who doesn't think there are any bathtubs in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 06:12:18 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:12:18 -0000 Subject: OMG! (was Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: <002101c8aa5a$259a8000$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: [Lee]: > Ah--indeed. Oh, Carol...Carol...Carol... Now we all know you don't want to flaunt your fame here, now, don't we... No, no, that wouldn't be advisable just yet... > > Lee :-) > (Taking off her "Gilderoy Lockhart" hat) > Carol: LOL, Lee! Carol, who thought that Lee was doing a Trelawney imitation! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 06:24:40 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:24:40 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie: > I would think that if the character is 23 the name would be appropriate for her intended audience. You can always point out that some people are offended by the term and let her decide. I assume she's using it "correctly" in terms of this is what it would be called by her characters and random people she knows, and we don't know if she's ever thought out the name. > > Why not just drop the color entirely, pointing out that the two words together sound like you're referring to a person? It's kind of classic Mary-Sue author to over-describe everyone's clothes. Carol responds: Good suggestion. Although you have no idea how well I know that tendency of inexperienced authors to overdescribe clothes, having it encountered the most incredibly detailed (and boring) descriptions in other manuscripts. BTW, the wifebeater makes four appearances in this one. There's also a reference to an undershirt. Whether they're used synonymously, I haven't discovered yet. If so, that could solve the problem. And, as I said upthread, I do intend to query the use of the word, not correct it. But it's always up to the author to accept or reject the copyeditor's corrections, and even a spelling correction (e.g., "cornor" changed to "corner") is regarded as a suggestion. Carol, who is enjoying this discussion From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 06:28:08 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:28:08 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: <000301c8aa71$9237dca0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: -Lee Storm wrote: > > Interestingly, I was just talking to a friend who is 25 years old and I asked him what he would ask for if he was going to buy one of those sleeveless shirts. He responded that he would ask for "an A-Shirt." > > When I told him what we were discussing, he told me that the "wifebeater" term was slang, which he didn't prefer to use, and preferred to call it by its proper name. I found that interesting. > > Cheers, > > Lee :-) Carol: That's on my list of suggestions, too, though I'd never heard the term "A-shirt" till we started this discussion. At least, unlike "wifebeater," it's in the dictionary! Carol, hoping that you'll thank your young friend for me From n2fgc at arrl.net Wed Apr 30 06:35:47 2008 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:35:47 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] OMG! (was Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: <002101c8aa5a$259a8000$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: <000101c8aa8c$6ca81fc0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> | [Lee]: | > Ah--indeed. Oh, Carol...Carol...Carol... Now we all know you don't | want to flaunt your fame here, now, don't we... No, no, that wouldn't | be advisable just yet... | > | > Lee :-) | > (Taking off her "Gilderoy Lockhart" hat) | > | Carol: | LOL, Lee! | | Carol, who thought that Lee was doing a Trelawney imitation! [Lee]: No, no,no! If I were doing Trelawney, I'd have to say, "Oh, Carol, my dear, if you only knew what I have seen whilst I gazed into the depths of the crystal orb; you are in grave danger!" Smile, Lee :-) (Smashing my crystal ball.) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 09:14:02 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:14:02 -0000 Subject: The AGA Saga (Was Re: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol, who doesn't think there are any bathtubs in Moaning > Myrtle's bathroom Goddlefrood: It's like this: a bathroom has a bath in it in UK English usage, full stop. There isn't one mentioned - that doesn't mean it's not there. Or maybe it was a clue to Myrtle's appearance in the prefect's bathroom in GoF. Probably not. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Apr 30 10:50:40 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:50:40 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > No, I don't mean an old-fashioned white undershirt. "Wifebeaters" are > sleeveless shirts worn as outer garments by young men who think > they're "cool." The basic design is the same as that of a vest-type > undershirt, but the fabric is more like that of a colored T-shirt (I > think). Anyway, I've included a couple of links in earlier posts, so I > won't add any more here. Potioncat: Oops. The character in question often wears a beater, but you're right. He's not wearing an A-shirt in that photo. The TV show is a Brit- com "Keeing Up Appearances" from PBS. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 30 13:58:25 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:58:25 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: And what about the boys' "bathroom" that Draco is crying in > in HBP? Is that "bathroom" in the UK edition as well? Magpie: Yup, he's in the boy's bathroom. And Ron rushes off to a nearby bathroom to throw up. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 16:21:15 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:21:15 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > ... > > Carol again: > Sorry to be unclear. I meant, don't boys and young men in the > UK wear the sleeveless "wifebeater"-type shirts ...? ... > bboyminn: Onslow (Geoffrey Hughes), the unkempt lay-about brother-in- law in the BBC TV show 'Keeping Up Appearances' was always perpetually in a wife beaters 'vest', much to Hyancith's horror. While not re-enforcing the 'wife beater' aspect, it certainly confirms the underclass unsavory lay-about aspect. Though I must admit the classic 'wife beater' looks much better on someone who is young and fit than it does on your typical overweight redneck. >.... > > Carol: > The description of the room in the books also sounds to me > like what you would call a "toilet" rather than a "bathroom." > After all, Myrtle plunges into a toilet in the American sense, > not a bathtub or shower. > > Very odd that JKR would use that word in that sense. The > prefects' bathroom has a gigantic tub, not stalls with toilets, > IIRC. Or does it have both? And what about the boys' "bathroom" > that Draco is crying in in HBP? Is that "bathroom" in the UK > edition as well? > > Carol, ... bboyminn: Well, we do know that people take baths and showers as there are a couple of brief side mentions of a character doing so, but we never clearly see rooms for bathing anywhere in the series with the exception of the Prefects Bath. One would think that the dormitory towers would have both toilet and bath facilities in the dorm tower. Sort of like a communal locker room. Notice that students aren't generally allowed out of the Dorms after 9 o'clock. What if you have to 'go' or need a shower after 9? Now one could speculate that the 'bathrooms' are like locker rooms. They have, in one area, toilet and sink facilities, and in another area bath and/or shower facilities. In Draco's case, while he was in the 'bath room', he was in the toilet area of that bathroom. In the army, we had an old saying about our daily routine that consisted of three 'S's which I will restate in more polite terms-- 'relieve yourself', shave, and a shower. My point being that in a space were a great number of people are living, a 'bathroom' is likely to have facilities to accommodate all three 'S's. Still, it seems odd that there is no mention of such a facility in the actual dormitory area. It would seem odd that students would have to go out of the dorms and roam the halls to get to a 'bath' facility. And, as a side note, to maintain public politeness and dignity, the general public toilet facilities are usually referred to as the 'men's room' and the 'lady's room'. While that is certainly not universally descriptive, here it is pretty much universally understood. For what it's worth. Steve/bboymin From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Wed Apr 30 16:54:48 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:54:48 -0000 Subject: We've got no chance Message-ID: Another amusing tale for you. Jayne Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following statistics? 29 have been accused of spouse abuse 7 have been arrested for fraud 19 have been accused of writing bad cheques 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses 3 have done time for assault 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges 8 have been arrested for shoplifting 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits 84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year Which organisation is this? It's the 635 members of the British House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line. We have got no chance!!!!!!! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 19:25:07 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:25:07 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > > How about the connotation of a man who beats his wife, the literal meaning of the word? Doesn't it imply a false standard of masculinity (male domination and violence)? That, not the ethnic origin or "trailer trash"/"redneck" connotation, is what troubles me. > SNIP Anyway, thanks for your perspective, Ali. It's probably similar to my clients. Please forgive me, but I get the idea that your generation just hasn't given the word any thought. > > Ali: > I'm going to try to not sound snide (because I'm not being snide), but what does the connotation have to do with it? A wifebeater, the object, is a shirt. A wife beater, the person, can (and, in this day and age, many times does) wear suits and other very respectable clothing. Carol responds: You don't sound snide at all, and I appreciate your perspective. But the connotation has everything to do with it. I doubt that most people who use the term "wifebeater/wife beater" in either sense are thinking about the spelling, and I'm seriously concerned that such a term can be casually thrown around without a thought given to the literal meaning. Why not, as Lee's friend suggests, call it by its proper name ("A-shirt")? Why use a term that seems to condone wifebeating, or, at least, to take it for granted? Ali: And while I think you're right in that most people haven't given the term thought, I think people of my generation who have given it thought have also decided that it isn't worth it to worry about the connotation of the name of a tee when the name is such a part of the vernacular - also, I don't know how common my experience is but the term has offended no one I've come in contact with before (meaning people my age and their parents). Carol: It seems to me that Lee's friend, who is your own age and h *has* given the term thought, has reached the opposite conclusion. The words we use for ordinary objects and occurrences reflect changing values. (I was once criticized by a twenty-something for saying that an animal was put to sleep; the "correct" term--IOW, the new term used by her generation--is "put down." No understanding whatever of the concept of linguistic change, not to mention respect for her elders, but, oh, well!) My point is that, yes, terms change, and, yes, the generations see things differently, but we should still listen to the literal meanings of our slang terms and see if they suggest something undesirable, as "wifebeater" certainly does. Ali: > I mean, Lee's friend is right. The term is a slang term, one that is extremely common. ,snip> Carol: And he has chosen *not* to use that very common slang term because of its connotations, and to use the correct term, "A-shirt," instead. (At least we agree that he's right!) Just because a term is in common use doesn't make it legitimate. Racial epithets used to be common. Calling women "broads" used to be common (perhaps it still is, in some circles). We need to think about the words they use. And if the term "wifebeater" doesn't offend people, or, at least, those who are so used to it that they don't think about its meaning, perhaps it should. Ali: > I think that Magpie's suggestion of taking out the colour altogether is best (but then, that's probably because, if I were the author, I would vehemently argue for the authenticity of keeping the term wifebeater). Carol: I'm not sure that you understand the role of a copyeditor. I do correct errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and word choice when the chosen word is an actual error ("conscious" for "conscience," for example, though that might count as spelling). I also delete wordy phrases and change passive voice to active voice, etc. But in a case like this, I query (question) the word choice, calling it to the attention of the author and asking her if she wants to change it, giving her my reasons and some alternative choices. But the decision to accept or reject my suggestions is entirely hers. And if she chooses "authenticity" over "connotations," that's her decision. As I always tell my clients in the cover letter that accompanies the edited manuscript, it's their manuscript. Ali: > My two cents. (Sorry if I sounded mean/snide/whatever since I honestly was trying not to be - can't guess how that came across, though, so I'm just making apologies now.) Carol: No need for apologies. I think you've kept your disagreement with me quite civil and I appreciate your honesty. No doubt I sound like a mean old codger who just doesn't "get" young people. But I'm genuinely concerned with language and with the terms we use (I won't go into other linguistic trends that annoy or trouble me). Carol, who likes honest, unemotional discussion and is glad that we can all express our views here, even if we only agree to disagree From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 19:32:44 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:32:44 -0000 Subject: OMG! (was Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: <000101c8aa8c$6ca81fc0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: Carol: > | LOL, Lee! > | > | Carol, who thought that Lee was doing a Trelawney imitation! > > [Lee]: > No, no,no! If I were doing Trelawney, I'd have to say, "Oh, Carol, my dear, if you only knew what I have seen whilst I gazed into the depths of the crystal orb; you are in grave danger!" Carol: Oh, dear! Remember what happened to Harry and to Umbridge after Trelawney made similar predictions! Do I dare to leave my apartment? Trelawney may be an old fraud, but she was certainly right about the Lightning-Struck Tower! Please take another look in your crystal ball and reshuffle your cards! Carol, knocking on wood (and, of course, enjoying the joke) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 30 20:11:51 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:11:51 -0000 Subject: wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > It seems to me that Lee's friend, who is your own age and h *has* > given the term thought, has reached the opposite conclusion. The words > we use for ordinary objects and occurrences reflect changing values. > (I was once criticized by a twenty-something for saying that an animal > was put to sleep; the "correct" term--IOW, the new term used by her > generation--is "put down." No understanding whatever of the concept of > linguistic change, not to mention respect for her elders, but, oh, > well!) Magpie: I'm a bit suspicious that there is really a "correct" term amongst 20- somethings for this. "Put down" has always sounded a lot harsher to me than "put to sleep" or "euthanize" (all of which have always been in use for my whole life, at least). I wonder if that particular woman didn't just have some private feelings about the terms or happens to have only heard one, because I'd guess that "put down" was the older term. I mean, "put to sleep" implies the use of tranquilizers (it's exactly what happens to the animal if you do it at the vet's) while "put down" I associated with potentially shooting it. Which is why I use "put to sleep," myself. If somebody said "put down" in this context I'd picture going out behind the barn with a shotgun! -m From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 20:23:47 2008 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:23:47 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] wifebeaters Re: Closets and Wardrobes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carol: > It seems to me that Lee's friend, who is your own age and h *has* > given the term thought, has reached the opposite conclusion. The words > we use for ordinary objects and occurrences reflect changing values. Ali: I have friends who choose to not use slangs at all (regardless of connotations), so I guess I didn't really pick up that the choice was one based on connotation. Carol: > Just because a term is in common use doesn't make it legitimate. Ali: But we're not talking about legitimacy in the world at large. We're talking about the context of an average 20-something in a novel and what he/she would say. (But I agree about common use not making a term legitimate and acceptable. After all, I'm still fairly aghast no matter how many times I hear the N-word [um...for our non-American friends who can't guess, that would be the highly offensive racial slur used against blacks and African-Americans], and that's not the only term of that kind that I can think of.) Carol: > I'm not sure that you understand the role of a copyeditor. Ali: I do. I work as one. Granted, it's not my job title, but we're a consulting firm and insists on being obtuse. What I meant was that, given the suggestion, I would go back to the editor/copy editor to see why the suggestion was made (i.e. get a dialogue going). In that case, I would also try to get him/her to see that the word choice was purposeful and appropriate because I would want to see if, even though the choice was purposeful, whether the choice of authenticity trumps something else of concern (in this case, offense to the reader). ~Ali, who thinks language is a funny thing sometimes From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 30 22:26:14 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:26:14 -0000 Subject: Closets and Wardrobes and toilets and vests and things.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: bboyminn: > Onslow (Geoffrey Hughes), the unkempt lay-about brother-in- > law in the BBC TV show 'Keeping Up Appearances' was always > perpetually in a wife beaters 'vest', much to Hyancith's > horror. Geoff: Which I woudl describe as either a vest or a singlet. Thanks for the name. I couldn't think of his name to save my life althoguh there's usually an episode running most days on TV over here. I don't often watch it; the cringe factor surrounding Hyacinth is too much for me. :-(