Slashdot Mirror
An Appeal In the "Harry Potter Lexicon" Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "RDR Books, the would-be publisher of the book version of the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' Web site, has filed an appeal from the judge's decision in Warner Bros. Pictures v. RDR Books, the case involving the Harry Potter Lexicon. The judge, after a bench trial, issued an injunction and awarded statutory damages of $6,750 (as we discussed at the time), holding that the Lexicon was not protected by fair use due to (a) sloppiness in attribution in sections, (b) the length of some of the quotes, and (c) imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style in portions. I recently wrote an article criticizing the opinion, but doubting that an appeal would be taken in view of the small damages award. I guess I underestimated the resolve of the defendants and defendants' lawyers — who include the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society."
The story is about a boy who lives in a cupboard ("in the closet"). His Aunt and Uncle are ashamed of him because his parents were quite eccentric ("flaming") and they are deeply concerned and afraid that he will turn out just like them. On his 11th birthday (i.e. roughly at the onset of puberty), the boy discovers that he is actually a "wizard", different in both style and substance from straight people, or "muggles" (breeders).
The boy is groomed into his new existence by a large, hairy bear of a man who shows Harry a hidden underground community of "wizards"(the gay subculture) living right under the noses of the general population . Harry's first visit to this subculture involves traveling through "Diagon Alley", a play on the word diagonally (not straight).
Don't marginalize diagonals!
I, for one, embrace the perpendicularly-challenged, and do NOT deny them the root of their diversity.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
In other words, you didn't get enough self-righteous indignation in at NYCL last time so you want a rehash of the same bullshit.
Thank you for pointing that out. Such an obvious troll.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I believe the case was Woosh vs Woosh 2006, Woosh County Court, State of Woosh
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You forgot the hot-n'-heavy scene with Tinky Winky.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
A long time ago when I was in an class someone told that all quotes had to be attributed and you could only quote one paragraph from each source, and you had to add some sort of original commentary tying the quotes together to make a point that was not present in any of them individually.
-- this quote was originally uttered by Hal_Porter
I notice you did not name this "someone". Does that mean that your quote is illegal?
If he made a parody of the thing, he'd be safe ?
1. s/Harry Potter/Hairy Putter/g
2. ???
3. Profit !
And yet, all I can hear is
"no no you see my song goes dundundundunde ding ding
their song goes dundundundun de ding ding"
Fair enough. Sorry if I goofed on the context.
No problem. I understand. You're a purist, you don't like your issues blended. :)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful