I am not a lawyer but I do work in a publishing house that has jumped through legal hurdles to publish a Harry Potter related book so I would like to comment on the ways this lawsuit should fail.

Many of the fans are arguing that a dictionary is just cutting and pasting from her books and selling it as his own.  Rowling herself on the stand called it “outright theft.” Creating a dictionary involves more than cutting and pasting. The editorial process of indexing and organizing each word is lengthy and not to be trivialized. Furthermore, if you take the time to visit the website (www.hp-lexicon.com) you will see that the content is original. For example, (from the site).

“banshee – Rating Unknown (PA7, GF21, FB)
A Dark creature with the appearance of a woman with floor-length black hair and a skeletal, green-tinged face. Its screams will kill. Seamus Finnigan is particularly afraid of banshees (PA7). The Bandon Banshee was supposedly defeated by Gilderoy Lockhart (CS6) but was actually defeated by a witch with a hairy chin (see CS16). The singer Celestina Warbeck performs with a backing group of banshees (DP).”

Clearly this is not copied from the text of the book but a wholly original definition of the word “banshee”.  I suspect they will have to double-check that some of it isn’t lifted from Merriam Webster but it’s obviously not from the book.  If there some portions that are too similar, Vander Ark, who runs the site, would obviously change them.  He himself cried on the stand.  After all, he has devoted a lot of commitment to this project because he is a fan.  The lawsuit is not saying, “some of this needs to be changed.”  They are saying he has no right to publish such a book, regardless of the wording.

Rowling claimed on the stand that one reason she is suing over this particular derivative is it is sloppily written. “‘Alohomora,’ a spell that opens doors in Harry Potter’s word, does not come from ‘aloha,’ the Hawaiian salutation, she said on the stand. Rather it derives from a West African term meaning favorable to thieves, she said.”  But that’s the beauty of capitalism: she can write her own version, and do it better!  There is no law against writing poorly.

The copywrite law is to protect from someone else selling a book that steals sales of your book, for example, condensing it or changing the names and selling what is essentially the same product cheaper. Obviously, this book wouldn’t take sales away from any of the existing HP books. It may take sales away from the Encyclopedia that she hasn’t written yet–there’s the rub!

It took many years for the Harry Potter Lexicon to evolve to the place it is at today, with the help of numerous writers.  Thus it may be as good, at least from an organizational perspective, as Rowling’s own Encyclopedia. Dictionaries, after all, don’t call for much in the way of creativity and one can hardly expect her to spend eight to ten years writing it.  I don’t believe that she would be making such a fuss unless she thought it to be an actual threat to her own encyclopedia.

But that book hasn’t been written. She is trying to apply the copy write of her existing book to the sales she thinks she will lose on her forthcoming book. While this is unlikely, I can see her up at night worrying that her book won’t be as comprehensive as the Lexicon that already exists. Which, when you come down to it, means that she has gotten used to having no competition and feels that she should not have to compete when it comes to characters she created.  Unfortunately for her, the U.S. (I believe the Lexicon is an American site, though I may be wrong) system loves competition.  Yes, she created those stories.  But if someone else wants to write another book based on her characters, they can.  If someone wants to analyze the stories, they can.  If someone wants to make a reference book, they can.

And isn’t it better that way?  When you step out of the situation and look at it with a clear head, why shouldn’t fans be able to create works that are derivative and complementary to the originals?  They won’t draw sales away from the original books.  If anything, they will give readers something to cling to once the series is over.  The fan-written sequel to Mrs Brisby and the Rats of NIMH was not nearly as good as the original but it in no way diminishes the classic it is based on.  Does the estate of Dr. Seuss suffer if I write a dictionary of the delightfully silly words from his books?  Does Stephen King suffer if you publish an index of all the characters that have died in his books?  Of course not.

But no! I can hear the fans crying what if she wants to write that book!  He has stolen her right to write the book!

Hogwash.  There is no copy write protection from a book that doesn’t exist yet.  And thank goodness: now Rowling claims she is so distressed that she fears will never be able to write it.  So she would have her book or no book, and possibly no book anyway.  What a perfect example of how fickle writers are.  It is a good thing the laws are set up as they are; this way maybe we will get something. And maybe we’ll get two books!  Or three!  And if Rowling can muscle up the strength to face the competition she will undoubtedly write it better and more critically.

Rowling’s lawyers have been getting more and more aggressive lately.  She has passed over many opportunities to sue and I believe this makes her feel like she can have her pick of the litter because she passed up all those other chances to litigate. Personally, I have always been a fan of Rowling (as a person, not just her books) but her claims that this case has forced her into some kind of dramatic writer’s block disgust me.  I suppose she’ll have to take to drugs like all the other great plagued writers out there.  Or maybe stop surrounding herself with lawyers and yes-men that coddle her.  If only writers could sue their way out of writer’s block we’d be swimming in literature!

Whatever reason, we must admit that the media is failing to dig up the dirt and the honorable title “fourth estate” can no longer be taken seriously.

Greg Mitchell wrote this for editorandpublisher.com.

Debunking Iran’s Nuclear Program: Another ‘Intelligence Failure’ — On the Part of the Press?

Iraqi WMD redux: The release of the NIE throwing cold water on oft-repeated claims of a rampant Iranian nuclear weapons program has chastened public officials and policymakers who have promoted this line for years. But many in the media have made these same claims, often extravagantly.

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK (December 04, 2007) — Press reports so far have suggested that the belated release of the National Intelligence Estimate yesterday throwing cold water on oft-repeated claims of a rampant Iranian nuclear weapons program has deeply embarrassed, or at least chastened, public officials and policymakers who have promoted this line for years. Gaining little attention so far: Many in the media have made these same claims, often extravagantly, which promoted (deliberately or not) the tubthumping for striking Iran.

Surely you remember Sen. John McCain’s inspired Beach Boys’ parody, a YouTube favorite, “Bomb-bomb-bomb, Bomb-bomb Iran”? That was the least of it. You could dance to it and it had a good beat. Not so for so much of the press and punditry surrounding the bomb. Who can forget Norman Podhoretz’s call for an immediate attack on Iran, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal last May, as he argued that “the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force — any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.”

As I’ve warned in this space for years, too many in the media seemed to fail to learn the lessons of the Iraqi WMD intelligence failure — and White House propaganda effort — and instead, were repeating it, re: Iran. This time, perhaps, we may have averted war, with little help from most of the media. In this case, it appears, the NIE people managed to resist several months of efforts by the administration to change their assessment. If only they had stiffened their backbones concerning Iraq in 2002.

For the rest of today and this week, media critics will be offering up all sorts of reminders of the near-fatal claims by many in the press relating to Iranian nukes. Sure to get attention are the scare stories in the summer of 2005 after “proof” of an Iranian nuke program somehow surfaced on a certain laptop, proudly unveiled by offiicials and bought by many in the media then as firm evidence (and now debunked, like much of the “proof” of Iraqi WMD provided by defectors a few years back).

Wth much effort, I’ve already found this beauty from David Brooks of The New York Times from Jan. 22, 2006, when he declared that “despite administration hopes, there is scant reason to believe that imagined Iranian cosmopolitans would shut down the nuclear program, or could if they wanted to, or could do it in time – before Israel forced the issue to a crisis point. This is going to be a lengthy and tortured debate, dividing both parties. We’ll probably be engaged in it up to the moment the Iranian bombs are built and fully functioning.”

As recently as this past June, Thomas Friedman of The Times wrote: “Iran is about to go nuclear.”

Even more recently, on October 23, 2007, Richard Cohen (like Brooks and Friedman, a big backer of the attack on Iraq) of The Washington Post, wrote: “Sadly, it is simply not possible to dismiss the Iranian threat. Not only is Iran proceeding with a nuclear program, but it projects a pugnacious, somewhat nutty, profile to the world.”

More in this vein is sure to come: I found those three quotes without even breaking a sweat. At least Friedman, Brooks and Cohen back some kind of diplomacy in regard to Iran, unlike many of their brethren.

Another Post columnist, Jim Hoagland, exactly one month ago summarized his year-long travels and study surrounding this issue, declaring “unmistakable effort by Iran to develop nuclear weapons….That Iran has gone to great, secretive lengths to create and push forward a bomb-building capability is not a Bush delusion.” He added the warning that “time is running out on the diplomatic track.”

One week before that, reporting on his trip to Moscow, Hoagland noted Putin’s doubts that Tehran will be able to turn enriched uranium into a usable weapon — but called that failure “implausible.”

We’d be remiss if we left out William Kristol, the hawk’s hawk on Iran, who for the July 14, 2006 issue of The Weekly Standard called for a “military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions–and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.”

As often the case, Salon.com’s popular blogger, Glenn Greenwald, may have gotten there first. A longtime critic of The Washington Post editorial page and its editor, Fred Hiatt, he has already happily reprinted a few choice passages from the past.

Here is the latest, from a Sept. 26, 2007 editorial in the Post, which flatly denounced Iran’s “race for a bomb”:

“As France’s new foreign minister has recognized, the danger is growing that the United States and its allies could face a choice between allowing Iran to acquire the capacity to build a nuclear weapon and going to war to prevent it.

“The only way to avoid facing that terrible decision is effective diplomacy — that is, a mix of sanctions and incentives that will induce Mr. Ahmadinejad’s superiors to suspend their race for a bomb. …
Even if Tehran provides satisfactory answers, its uranium enrichment — and thus its progress toward a bomb — will continue. That doesn’t trouble Mr. ElBaradei, who hasn’t hidden his view that the world should stop trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and should concentrate instead on blocking U.S. military action …

“European diplomats say they are worried that escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, if fueled by more sanctions, could lead to war. What they don’t make clear is how the government Mr. Ahmadinejad represents will be induced to change its policy if it has nothing to fear from the West.”

Greenwald also resurrects Post editorial quotes in this vein going back to 2005, along with this choice snippet from a September online interview with Kenneth Pollack, whose complete wrongheadedness on Iraqi WMD somehow has not kept him from remaining a darling of the press as an expert on Iran’s nukes and other Middle East issues:

“Q. How compelling is the evidence that Iranians are developing a nuclear weapons program?

“POLLACK: Obviously, the evidence is circumstantial, but it is quite strong.”

I’ll provide other examples of pundit malfeasance as they surface.

They are also a glass ceiling of sorts, in the book world. Not every publishing house can afford to print them. If the book is expected to sell copies by the hundreds, rather than the thousands, printing in hardback is unwise. Not only will it be pricey, it is risky too. If the book doesn’t succeed, the publisher has lost that much more money. Moreover, consumers are less likely to shell out the money for the hardback so initial sales would be lower than straight to paperback.

Why print in hardback at all, then? Because many of the big trade media won’t review a book if it is a paperback. Paperbacks are for second editions and they only want to see what’s brand-spanking-new. And without those reviews, it is much harder for those books to get publicity. Without publicity, books only sell if someone happens upon them or are looking for that books existence. Some nonfiction can make it this way, biographies and memoirs are seriously wounded and fiction is finished, without a first edition in hardback. This is clearly disadvantageous to the smaller publishers and the riskier books.

Canada continues to grapple with the consequences of the ever-weaker US dollar.

From the article:

Prices [of books sold to bookstores] were adjusted once last fall, but as the dollar has continued to decline, that change is insufficient…The Globe and Mail reports that dominant chain Indigo plans to “imminently” pass on savings in the form of discounts or promotions. Random House Canada president Brad Martin indicates they “will give booksellers a 5-per-cent discount on U.S. books until the end of the year.” Penguin Canada will reduce prices 5 percent on their new fall books and on some backlist hits.

Ouch. Next time you pick up a book, imagine the Canadian and U.S. prices reversed to get a more realistic idea of the current value of the dollar. And that’s what its worth today. But what’s in store for the future of our currency?

Project Censored every year releases a top ten list of important stories that were buried by the corporate media. I heard on a podcast that OPEC is trading its dollars into Euros. According to the projectcensored.org site, the value of our dollar has been a big white lie, which we have been able to get away with because it is tied to the price of oil. Which works out fine for us, as long as that continues. Then it is certainly bad news to hear that “Russia, Venezuela, and some members of OPEC have expressed interest in moving towards a petroeuro system for oil transactions.”

According to the article, China is the world’s second largest holder of U.S. currency (you would think the U.S. is number one. Its Japan).

“Maintaining the U.S. as a market for their goods is a pre-eminent goal of Chinese financial policy, but they are increasingly dependent on Iran for their vital oil and gas imports…But the Chinese government has indicated interest in de-linking the dollar-yuan arrangement, which could result in an immediate fall in the dollar. More worrisome is the potentiality of China to abandon its ongoing prolific purchase of U.S. Treasuries/debt-should they become displeased with U.S. policies towards Iran.”

Hmm…how can we displease China?…I know! Let’s go to war with Iran!

I kid, but this is serious busines. I’m accostomed to my currency maintaining its value. What good is the 25 dollars in interest I have earned in my savings account if the dollar itself is worth half what it once was? I don’t like to hear the words “plummet” and “dollar” in the same sentence (truly, “plummet is an unpleasant word. I don’t like to hear it in any sentence). But if you need to know how to spell “plummet” you can look it up in the Project Censored article, their right next to the word “dollar”.

This article is only ranked 9. Makes you wonder what the other, higher-ranking censored stories are, doesn’t it?

I can’t really blame the dollar for being coy. A little rouge on the cheeks, a corset under the bosom. She still wants to get into the swankiest clubs in town. And dance and dance all night. And we see her with rose-colored glasses. Beneath it all, I don’t just hope she is looking fresh tomorrow. I hope she’s still standing.

The other day we had an author get really upset because he didn’t like what we were planning for the book he pitched. I have seen this a number of times. It makes me sad. I hate to break it to you, authors, but you don’t own the idea. If you go to a publisher with a non-fiction pitch, and they like it, that doesn’t mean that they will choose you to be the writer.

Even if you have already published a book, and they come to you to buy it from you, you still don’t own the idea. You own the book but not the idea. Should they decide that you are too fussy to work with or that your name isn’t recognizable enough or if they just don’t like the smell of you, they may move onto to pitch the exact same idea to a different author.

This happens more often than you might think. A lot of potential writers feel like they have some sort of power because they have ownership of that concept. They want to play hardball. Then they get no book contract at all.

When you go to a publisher and try to sell your book, don’t just sell the book. Sell yourself as the author. Why are you the best person to write this book? If you don’t have that authority, what makes you think they will publish it? Because at every step of the process, they are going to have to convince other people that you are the go-to-guy/girl when it comes to the subject you write on. If you can’t compel the publisher than it is likely that they won’t be able to convince the buyer at the wholesale level or, later, at the retail level. A book that doesn’t find its way into bookstores is a waste. You have to prove that won’t happen to you.

Furthermore, I am more likely to give the yes-vote on a book that I know I can promote. If the writer is out in the world doing things related to their subject matter I know it is going to make my job easier. So you want to write a cook-book full of peanut butter ice cream recipes. Why you, and not Emeril?

If you don’t have that authority, it is not to late to establish it. I’m not saying you need to go to culinary school. But you could offer free classes on how to make your tasty recipes. You could start up a peanut butter potato newsletter. You could start giving away your fixin’s at nursing homes/homeless shelters/clinics etc. Then when you take that idea to the publisher,they are more likely to buy not just the idea, but you as the author. They wholesaler likes it, the retailer likes it, and the Joe on the street is more likely to take it to the cash register. And before you know it, everyone in town is eating hot peanut butter baked potatoes.