That case and that book

[Carol]

Nora:
> <SNIP>
> > And erm... Carol, this is a civil case, the statement that you
just  made is incorrect on several levels.
> <SNIP>

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