[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Thoughts from a different perspective

[Lee Kaiwen]

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