That case and that book

[nrenka]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 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. :)