I'm pretty sure Kensington still owns some of her backlist. They did a few years ago, anyway. Desire's Blossom was one shining example.

I've never read any Cassie Edwards - the covers and titles were enough to scare me away and then I read some reviews, so I can't speak to the quality (or lack thereof). But the plagiarism thing ... I think making her pay the people who did the actual writing she stole would be punishment enough. And Amy, I agree with you that she didn't seem to realize that what she was doing was wrong - from all reports, she seemed to think this was how you did research. BUT ... I know that my freshman year in college, they had us scared to the point we were footnoting everything (I had someone footnote me when I gestured to the curve of a statue in the museum), so you'd think in 20+ years of writing she'd catch on.

The guy who wrote the article about the ferrets (really - WTF? ferrets?) was kind of amused. He bought and read the book, the Smart Bitches interviewed him. Several readers of the blog propositioned him (which he took in good humor ... don't think he took any of it that seriously). Nora Roberts matched funds and they raised $10K to save the ferrets, so some good came out of it.

It even made the Christian Science Monitor recently: [link]

Nothing new, except that Monitor!

So what are people's takes on Rowling suing the creator of the Harry Potter Lexicon for wanting to create a book based on his website?

[link] for those who might not be familiar.

I'm coming down with Rowling on this. She may admire the website, but a website is a different beast than creating and selling a book based on her work.

I really think she's in the wrong, actually. This guy made 6K in 7 years with his website (which she has previously admired, and which was used to check accuracy for the films) and when he wants to put the website info into a book she sues him? First, she's insane if she thinks there's a fan alive who will buy his book and not buy hers. Secondly, he's basically compiling information (hers and other sources) which to me, seems like he's writing a reference book about her books. I've seen similar things for Tolkien and other stuff.

Reference works are fair use of the material, much the same as the various guides to Middle Earth are. I don't think she has a leg to stand on.

Or what Maysa said.

I think SVA is a fuckcake, and I hope he and RDR get smited.

Or what Maysa said.

Heh. I tend to get riled up about this issue - but he could be fuckcake (I don't know anything about him beyond what I read in the paper).

I think he's a fuckcake, and right on this issue. Unfortunately not mutually exclusive. Rowling winning on this will be a further narrowing of fair use - not good in my opinion. [on edit cutting out the rest because I think the post is clearer without]

I don't think it's so much about the money as about who controls what's published with her words. I didn't see anywhere that he got permission.