In short, I don’t consider that the ability to use magic, as something that is reserved for ‘the chosen’ is a concept I like. If magic exists in real life, then there is no bloodline that makes it so you can, or else you can’t. It means you develop abilities and some people might be better at it, but nobody is cut-off from it.

If we’re going to start on the politically problematic elements of the Harry Potter books, we’ll be going for a long, long time.

The redundancy…

Card says that Rowling is a hypocrite because she is suing the Lexicon despite borrwing from other authors herself. But his examples are 1) She uses iconic elements of fantasy adventure stories that Card himself, like hundreds of other writers, has also used, and 2) the Stouffer lawsuit. What Card doesn’t tell his readers is that Stouffer forged documents in order to bolster her claim that Rowling plagiarized her, and the court found that Rowling hadn’t plagiarized. (Read the judge’s ruling.)

Neither of those examples is at all the same as the Lexicon; the situations are too dissimilar to sustain the hypocrisy argument Scott Card is making.

There’s also something very disturbing about Card’s gleeful tone as he describes the future of humiliation and failure that he believes is in store for Rowling, who he describes as exhibiting “evil-witch” behavior. I don’t know what motivates Card’s mean-spirited tone, but it feels ugly.

I agree with Card that the outcome of the case should be that “Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law’s provision for scholarly work, commentary, and review.” I don’t share his confidence that such will be the outcome of the case.

A number of newspapers have quoted Rowling saying that she “never, ever once wanted to stop Mr. Vander Ark doing his own guide, never.”

However, although the Judge in this case repeatedly urged both parties to try to reach a settlement, they did not in fact do so. Rowling and Warner Bros. are still pushing to enjoin the book.

In fact, that particular line of Rowling’s — coming as it did at the very end of a three-day trial over the course of which the parties had repeatedly refused to settle — provoked a minor explosion of annoyance from Judge Patterson, who labeled the entire line of questioning “inappropriate,” rather irritably repeated his belief that the case would be best handled out of court, and then chastised Rowling’s attorney for, in effect, trying to talk the compromise talk without walking the compromise walk.

The transcripts are rather a fascinating read, really.

At least, they are to a sad geek like me.

Well, when I was in physiotherapy in 2002, I heard from many of the (female) workers there that they recommended the books. They didn’t seem to think it was a children’s book. It seems to be of lesser interests to adult men than to adult women though. I’ve not been particularly interested in the books, though I saw the first 4 movies.

Nitpicking on my part that, while I consider innate ability as a concept to be okay, I don’t consider innate uniqueness of ability - and as such unattainable by the common of mortals - to be valid.

In short, I don’t consider that the ability to use magic, as something that is reserved for ‘the chosen’ is a concept I like. If magic exists in real life, then there is no bloodline that makes it so you can, or else you can’t. It means you develop abilities and some people might be better at it, but nobody is cut-off from it.

Just like everyone* can run, and some people can run better, either due to genetic or training (most likely both), but everyone can still run, not only the chosen ones.

*I realized I may have been ableist with that last comment and do not mean to say anything against people who have never had usage of their legs, or lost it later in life. It is just meant as a generalization.

I wouldn’t say that this case going against Vander Ark would mean that the lexicon is dead as an art form. I think it means that if you want to make a lexicon of some other author’s copyrighted work you’d have to pay them a royalty. That doesn’t kill the art form.

There would have to be a form of copyright protection which extended from a work of one kind, to a “lexicon” in order for royalties to be due. Which means that there is no legal right to produce a lexicon (or diction or index or concordance or …) as a new creative work. I can’t see the court ruling that way — unless Vander Ark did nothing more than cut and paste.

What is interesting in all the things I read is that Vander Ark may have a counter-claim (IANAL) against Rowling since she admits to using Vander Ark’s website as a resource. I think an even more damning piece of information is that Rowling gave Vander Ark some kind of “award” for his website, and apparently the two of them had extensive communication over the years, much of which involved him publishing this growing body of reference material.

At any rate, interesting stuff.

If Vander Ark loses, they’d face the choice between 1) cutting in Rowling/Scolastica/et al. for a slice of the proceeds from publishing the lexicon, or 2) not publishing.

It’s my (perhaps mistaken) impression that Rowling and Warners doesn’t want to give permission for the Lexicon to be printed at all. They don’t want a cut; they want it not to be published in book form.

Rowling would have the option of publishing her own lexicon in the face of all the bad will and bad publicity she will have generated among fans, or not.

Actually, most polls on fansites are strongly in her favor. A lot of fans don’t like the idea of paying for a lesser version of what they can get for free on the site. They don’t like the way that SVA has possibly endangered fansites and fanwork of all types.

Also, in my opinion, the Lexicon is eclipsed by the Harry Potter wiki, which is much easier to navigate. If the SVA Lexicon is published, I don’t think it will sell very well.

I wouldn’t say that this case going against Vander Ark would mean that the lexicon is dead as an art form. I think it means that if you want to make a lexicon of some other author’s copyrighted work you’d have to pay them a royalty. That doesn’t kill the art form.

And I expect this to be the ultimate outcome here. If Vander Ark loses, they’d face the choice between 1) cutting in Rowling/Scolastica/et al. for a slice of the proceeds from publishing the lexicon, or 2) not publishing. Rowling would have the option of publishing her own lexicon in the face of all the bad will and bad publicity she will have generated among fans, or not.

And if Vander Ark wins, they’d still face the choice between cutting in Rowling/Scolastica/et al. for a slice of the proceeds AND getting Rowling’s blessing AND getting authorization to use illustrations from the books, etc., or publishing without it, running the risk of offending a segment of the market that remains loyal to Rowling, and of competing against a forthcoming lexicon from Scholastic that will enjoy Rowling’s blessings, fuller quotations, illustrations from the books/movies, etc.

Before litigation, each side has a powerful economic incentive to do a deal, but also had a powerful economic incentive NOT to do a deal: that is, they had the hope of prevailing in court. After litigation – regardless of outcome – each side still has an incentive to do a deal, but will then much less economic incentive to refuse. The outcome of the case will influence the terms of the deal, but I expect a deal regardless of outcome. (Compare to the Coase Theorem: Clear property rights permit socially optimal arrangements, regardless of who holds those rights; unclear property rights impede transactions, and therefore impede optimal arrangements.)

Of course, I can’t rule out the possibility that people would act counter to their economic incentive. In particular, because the lexicon’s author initially created the lexicon as a labor of love, and is feeling pretty badly treated now, he may no longer be willing to work with Rowling under any circumstances. (Compare to the incentives Clinton and Obama have to name each other as running mates vs. the actual inclination they have to campaign together.)

I don’t think it matters that JKR might, some day, when the Moon is in Uranus and Jupiter is invaded by giant black domino shaped objects, write a lexicon has any bearing on the matter. Until she writes that lexicon, writing a lexicon isn’t a derivative work of a non-existent lexicon. It’s a new creative work.

If Vander Ark doesn’t copy any actual text — and he’d be a fool if he did, because there is case law that says too many little quotes is no longer covered by “Fair Use”, while some smaller number is — I think the only remaining theory is “Derivative Work”, and a lexicon is a different type of work than a fantasy fiction novel, movie, action figure, lunch box or sleepwear.

However, even if Rowlings DOES, some day, produce a lexicon, the class of work called “lexicons” isn’t patented or trademarked or any other form of protection. It’s a TYPE of creative work, much like “Bad Romance Novel” is a type of creative work and “Overdone Sequel” is a type of creative work.

So, the question is, what legal theory is being invoked? Seeing the filings would be instructive.

(And now I’ve read the opposition motion to the motion to dismiss certain pieces of evidence.)

The filing I did see — the one with the pretty charts — only mentions “Word Counts”, it doesn’t say how long the word sequences were. “Evil wizard”, even if it appears in JKR’s work, is not copyrightable. “Big meanie evil wizard” isn’t either. For example, “A Quidditch field is a large outdoor stadium in which students fly on their brooms while chasing a flying ball thingy” may contain phrases that are in the books, but Yankee Stadium is also a “large outdoor stadium” where people “chase” a “flying ball”. Difference being, they catch the ball more often in Yankee Stadium.

At this point I’m leaning more strongly in favor of Vander Ark.

I’ll also point out that if this case goes against Vander Ark it means that “lexicon” is essentially a dead form of art. And I can’t see the court ruling that people can’t write lexicons, indices, concordances, or other such works. And then there is the issue of actual damages, which, if history is any guide, could well be negative as readers of the lexicon purchase the original books now that they have an “index” they can use to help understand them better.

You have permission to quote the ellipsis in quotes above, but this sentence explaining that you can is only available, with permission, from my publisher.

But, like I said, I’m from a different century - I may just be a dinosaur.

I assume you’re referencing Jurassic Park part 8, where dinosaurs are re-created in the 24th century? Because throughout most of history, up until fairly recently, the ability to freely copy information has been the norm.

Learn more at http://questioncopyright.org/