Hate to say this but I told you so

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7605142.stm

You’re shouting again and don’t get personal. I had asked you a couple of question with regard to your previous comment. I think I do have a right to question you if you leave a comment on my blog for some guy who came to your blog- even though he might have visited through my blog. And of course I’m not the best blogger. Who said that I’m the best? You are most welcome to think whatever you want.- Ruhi

P.S- Yes, I have come across people who type in caps on the net and I fail to understand their incompetence in learning something so basic.

Nidhi- I don’t appreciate your tone in this comment. I don’t know whom it is really addressed to! Is this entire comment for the guy? (that is what you said in the beginning of the comment). Then why are you saying this-

Because you both (ruhi and the anonymous commentor) will gain more insight into my opinion about this lawsuit.

People have different opinions and that’s fine with me. But please don’t write in Caps (Which amounts to shouting). It seems quite kiddish.

and finally, thanks ruhi. i’m really enjoying this conversation.

Now why that tone again? I thought that the comment is addressed to some anonymous guy who left a comment on your blog?

I remember you leaving a couple of comments on my blog a couple of months back, where all you had done was leave two or three links to some specific posts of yours! And you know what I’m implying here. Thanks.

P.S- It would have been great if you would have provided a link to the comment that you are referring to and a link to your Harry Potter blog. Thanks.

Ref: 8 things I’m passionate about.

6. SPEW –
Society for Promotion of Elfish Welfare FROM JK ROWLING – SOCIETY CREATED BY HERMIONE GRANGER

7. G.RO.S.S. –
Get Rid Of Slimy girlS. LIKE YOU SAID, BILL WATTERSON IN CALVIN AND HOBBES.
Emphasis on slimy.

8. Bringing back the Dolphins – DOUGLAS ADAMS.

If you were wondering about the last three things, just take it that I’m passionate about imagination and humour, mine or others. WHAT I SAID.

ANYWAY, you said that with all my ideas on copyright, an attribution is in order. True. But had you seen my blog carefully enough, you’d have noticed bill watterson features in the credits in the sidebar, because I keep using so many of his cartoons and ideas, take my header for example.

But I’m not doing what Steve Vander Ark is doing. I’m not, in other words, putting my name JKR’s or Watterson’s work and using it for profit. Profit in the monetary sense, of course. I admit I get a kick out of blogging and writing ABOUT others’ ideas that inspire me.

Steve is writing a companion book when, agreed, there are many such books already in the market. Why target him? Because maybe JKR was already planning a Lexicon/ Encyclopaedia on Harry Potter. It would be absolutely silly that her version would appear in the bookstores with another book on the same subject written by a different author. And like JKR says, when they’re both describing a Chinese Fireball, it’s not like they’re both describing a giraffe. JKR’s ideas are her own and nobody but her has the right to elucidate upon them. A copyright wouldn’t make sense otherwise. Sure there are biographies and guides and cliff notes and stuff. But is jkr thinks Steve’ lexicon is a threat to her work, she has a right to. She’s already been so magnanimous with her fans. For her, its not a question of a few million dollars anymore. In the end it all boils down to the question—“is our work our own?”

Maybe I should have introduced myself earlier in this comment. But you ought to know, that me and my best friend run a blog with some other of our friends (including the ishmeet) about harry potter. I think you oughta go check it out. Because you both (ruhi and the anonymous commentor) will gain more insight into my opinion about this lawsuit.

and finally, thanks ruhi. i’m really enjoying this conversation.

“Finding those loopholes and using them to your advantage is nothing wrong.”

This opinion can only come from a lawyer I daresay

On the rest:

If you go back and read the history of copyright you will see that the copyright owners were very vocal in defending their rights. Writers and musicians were foremost in this defence. Just like then, enforcement in most cases also depends on the aggrieved party defending itself and that is what JKR is doing.

On derivative products: The definitions are clear enough and the laws both in the UK and the US unequivocally confer the rights related to derivative product on the original copyright holder. Warner Bros own a licence to the ‘films’ as derivative products, but JKR still owns the copyright.

BTW in my comment, I do not base my view on a distinction between paper and online versions, just the for-profit and not-for-profit aspects of the lexicon. The use, by the fan for his own profit, of materials that she created does remain objectionable. If he were smart and well-advised, the author of the website would do well to negotiate a licence with her. The best IP disputes can be resolved within the framework of laws given (a recent patent related example is the Nexium related settlement that Astra Zeneca recently made with Ranbaxy while it presses ahead with the trial with Teva and Sandoz).

Alas, disagreeing with her stance - or worse, calling her names, such as a copyright hog as an FT blogpost recently called her - does not detract from her moral rights. The website owner remains on shaky ground and I will be very surprised if the Judge rules in his favour.