I find it hard to cheer for SVA/RDR in part because they've operated in bad faith from the very beginning. Jackass is too kind a term for either of them.

Also because one of their arguments is that JKR waived the right to prevent the publication of the Lexicon by approving of the website. If they win on that argument, they've likely doomed a lot of other online fan activity, because copyright holders will shut sites down rather than be held to have waived any right to limit derivative uses later. (They do not however have a strong case there, but the fact that they made the argument at all shows how little they value other fans' interests in the matter.)

IANAIPL, but there's no independent analysis in the Lexicon, and most of it is apparently poorly-rephrased restatements lifted right from the original novels. It's not plagiarism, but I think it would be a stretch to call it transformative, unless transformation means "alphabetizing". I'll be interested to see what the court decides.

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.

Not really sure if or how much this relates, but JKR did say on the stand that the success of the Lexicon would diminish her incentive to finish her own proposed Harry Potter Encyclopedia. So that may act as a refutation of the position that JKR's copyright argument doesn't apply (in the moral sense).

I'm not familiar with the full extent of copyright law, but it seems from where I sit that the copyright should also give JKR a certain amount of say as to what ancillary materials relating to her work are created, by whom and how well. The Tolkien Estate is reputedly very hardcore about people publishing Hobbit/LOtR materials without approval by them, and I seem to recall that the bulk of Tolkienana not written by The Professor Hisself was/is written by Christopher Tolkien, thus approved by the Tolkien Estate.

Was it here we were talking about 33 1/3 books? I just wanted to say that I finished Carl Wilson's book on Celine Dion last night, and it's extraordinarily great. Wilson's idea is simple: why do so many people love Dion while so many critics hate her? He challenges his own sense of aesthetics over and over, delves into a brief history of aesthetics (which is so directly written and beautiful that everyone should find it approachable), and makes a stronger argument for the validity of Dion's music than I'd imagined possible. Recommended for everyone. Most 33 1/3 books aren't; they're for music and lit geeks. I couldn't imagine my wife being interested in most of the 33 1/3 books (she's read mine and expressed interest in David's), but I wholeheartedly recommended Wilson's book to her.

Does Wilson approach to subject from the POV of a fan or a critic?

Does Wilson approach to subject from the POV of a fan or a critic?

He's not a Celine fan. He's examining the nature of taste. But it's a very funny, well-written and surprisingly heartfelt book. He's very fair and thoughtful.

I think of it as the opposing bookend to Joe Carducci's Rock and the Pop Narcotic.

I've never been interested in Celine Dion before but now I want to read that book.

Pinball, by Jerzy Kosinski.

Would somebody mind explaining to me why do I keep returning to this one? I can see why I do so thematically: the use of music, the secrets. But, c'mon me, it's shallow. It has no depth, it's racist, and have nothing but a somewhat good idea. And the sex scenes are ridiculous at best.

Yet, that might be one of my favorite books.

Before I'm losing any respect I've ever had to my literary taste (I am the daughter of a librarian, after all), someone care to jump in with explanation?

I read it years ago and found it compelling, but I remember not a whit of it (high school, illegal pharmaceuticals - you get the picture). The only other Kosinki I've read is Steps which is...disturbing, to say the least, and probably why I've never made a proper effort with The Painted Bird.

My roommate in boarding school read The Painted Bird. One of nights she was reading it she came into my niche of the room, her eyes red, she was shaking and appalled, saying "promise me you'll never read it!" and "the rabbit! the poor rabbit!".

I have no idea what it was about, but I stayed away from the book.

I think it's both grotesque and profound. Apparently parts of it were based on Roman Polanski's life as a young Jew on the run in Eastern Europe during WWII, as well