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.

Short version (moral, not legal argument): the purpose of copyright is not to give a writer absolute control over work. It is to provide the incentive to ensure creative work will be done. A derivative work of this type does not take incentive away to produce original work - at least not significantly. If Rowling had known in advance that someone could publish a lexicon like this it is really unlikely that would have prevented her from writing the series. Further it is generally unlikely the ability to do this would prevent people in general from doing creative work.

To the extent creative people are granted rights past the point needed to compensate them for their work the work of future creative people is being restricted.

Another strike against excessive copyright. Information, unlike other human creations, can be consumed without being diminished. The number of other people who read Ursula LeGuin does not affect my ability to read the dispossessed. Again, a reason why copyright should restrict use only to the point where that use is likely to cost the author money; use beyond that point should be considered fair use. Even that restriction should last a fairly limited time.