Rowling is also quoted as saying that success by RDR in their position would create a chilling effect online, whereby “authors everywhere will be forced to protect their creations much more rigorously, which could mean denying well-meaning fans permission to pursue legitimate creative activities.” This seems a bit of a stretch, since what remains essentially at issue is whether someone is able to profit from a concordance of a copyrighted fictional realm – whether that activity is itself a legitimate creative activity – and less whether, say, slash fan fiction should be driven underground (because it will never die!). Coverage at other sources like Ars Technica (whose article’s title – “Fairuse obliteratus” – pretty much sums up their position) have pointed out that equivalent works have been published about comparable realms like Middle Earth without comparable kerfuffle, so long as they are adequately identified as by a third-party (hence the common “Official”/”Unofficial” delineation in the guidebook aisle). The matter of law is still whether, under the four-fold test, the proposed HP Lexicon publication shows sufficient scholarly or transformative properties as to deserve protection from infringement.

The case also reminds us of the ongoing conflict over the purposes of copyright protection, and whether copyright owners – which are today often not the same as the creators – have nigh-unlimited reach and control over their works. With the public domain threshold effectively frozen at 1923 due to recurring term extensions such as the Sonny Bono Act, and ‘fair use’ provisions under constant attack by the efforts of the RIAA and related lobbying efforts to restrict all media access under narrower terms, our culture is being kept locked away in corporate vaults so that we are forced to rent access to it ad infinitum. Jack Valenti infamously remarked that if keeping copyright intact forever would violate the Constitution, we should consider “forever minus one day.” Whether even the current 70 years extension after the death of the artist truly serves the stated goal of promoting the Constitution’s stated intent to promote “progress of science and useful arts” is a question well worth examining in the public square.

Incidentally, it was reported that “Rowling’s lawyers did not want Vander Ark in the courtroom while Rowling testifies.” One wonders why she would feel this way, and quite honestly, what difference it makes whether the lawyers want that or not. Coverage of today’s appearance gives at least one hint – whereas before the suit (when the Lexicon only operated as a site) Rowling lauded Vander Ark’s efforts and reported using it as a reference site herself to check details, in testimony today she described the material as ’sloppy’ and ’shoddy’ and cited errors in translation and interpretation. She further described the toll the lawsuit had taken upon her creative endeavors, jeopardizing her interest in doing an official encyclopedic work with proceeds to go to charity. As to the meat of the matter, she argues that in contrast with other published works on the Potterverse, the Lexicon provides too little analysis and commentary and essentially only catalogues the names of people, places, spells and creatures (in essence, an encyclopedia). In a nice turn of phrase, she declares, “It takes far too much and it offers precious little in return.” And on that assessment the judge’s decision will hang.

Curiously, Harry Potter also makes an unusual appearance in an unrelated property rights case between Universal and a reseller of promotional recordings that tackles the doctrine of “first sale” vs licensed property – to wit, who owns the promotional discs. Harry’s discussion in Deathly Hallows with Bill Weasley about how goblins view rights of goblin-made objects leads off the EFF’s amicus brief. I wonder if Harry Potter quotations have already supplanted Alice in Wonderland for academic pop references? (Try finding a modern paper on philosophy of language without an Alice quotation.)

Next, while J.K. Rowling herself states “we all know I’ve made enough money,” it appears that the largesse is at least partially shared by Daniel Radcliffe, who is reported to have earned $26 million last year. The blurb mentions that he earned $16 million for Order of the Phoenix, but not whether that contributed to the year’s total. With Deathly Hallows now officially split into two films (oh why couldn’t they have saved Goblet of Fire?), he stands to earn quite a bit more by the time the series finishes up.

Finally, on a more rah-rah note, Amazon is holding a contest to let you spend a weekend with their copy of Tales of Beedle the Bard. The original tome was instrumental in Deathly Hallows, and as a charity bit, Rowling hand-wrote and illustrated 7 copies for auction. The contest winner takes a trip to London (the one in England is specified) where Amazon will let you, under guard, interact with the copy they won at auction. It is not clear whether gloves are provided, or whether the cost for same would be taken out of your expense allowance should you not bring a proper pair. The contest itself is 100 words or less on any of three topics:

1. What songs do wizards use to celebrate birthdays?
2. What sports do wizards play besides Quidditch?
3. What have you learned from the Harry Potter series that you use in everyday life?

If this were a thriving community of avid readers, I might suggest something like “what other questions do you think they should ask?” Lacking that, I will point out that submissions are in two age groups (13-17, 18+), must be submitted by April 22nd, and after being whittled down by Amazon to 20 semi-finalists, two finalists and the ultimate winner will be selected by the public (so, just like American Idol, we can trust that the truly best will make it to the final round, where they will lose out to their lesser counterparts.) Reading the FAQ, it’s not made especially clear, but it does sound like only one grand prize is shared between both age categories. In another spot of confusion, a separate link is offered to “submit your own knock-knock joke, pun, tongue twister, haiku or other whimsical witticism based on Harry Potter or the Tales of Beedle the Bard” but you have to drill down into the product forum to join in. Be warned: low standards are advised.

(Curiously, the attribution of that quotation is in dispute, with Franklin possibly only involved in publishing the book that bore it. Another diplomat named Richard Jackson is now the presumptive author. However, Franklin’s 1738 Poor Richard’s Almanack has another maxim with similarly sage advice – “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.”)

Progressively, as Wallace continues in more detail, the suggestion becomes less of a Swiftian Modest Proposal and something more ominous than a partisan snipe. While the proposed trade may be in itself monstrous to consider, the current conflict being so far removed from our borders makes it difficult to even consider what level of sacrifice is acceptable to maintain our full identity as a nation. Without a draft to more equally distribute the communities affected by active military service, or tax hikes or war bonds to spread the cost (not to mention the seeming paradox of maintaining a tax cut while continually asking for emergency war deficit spending), the American public is able to contribute in large part only by passively asserting we ’support our troops’ and gradually ceding our civil liberties and governmental checks and balances. The collective steps that Wallace mentions plus others, taken together, raise frightening prospects:

• “Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib” – apart from their probable propaganda effect among terrorist factions, both have demonstrably undermined the US commitment to the Geneva Conventions, and presented the US as a supporter of torture.
• Military Commissions Act – actively suspends some of the Geneva Conventions and the basic legal principle of habeas corpus for detainees, and creates the quasi-legal status of “unlawful enemy combatant”
• “Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance” – whereas detentions, extraordinary rendition, etc. have largely affected non-US citizens, the expanded police powers under the Patriot Act(s) and the implementation of widespread electronic surveillance on US soil without Congressional or Judicial oversight all speak to an unchecked Executive enforcement arm.
• Executive Order 13233 – restricts access to past Presidential records. Along with the explosion of document classification under the current administration, repeated imposition of executive privilege, resistance to Freedom of Information Act requests, shifting of White House email to GOP servers to avoid retention rules, and even the latest tale of Karl Rove’s investigator having drives ‘disinfected’ of malware by 7-pass wipes all serve to restrict oversight of Executive functions even by historians.
• NSPD 51, or “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive” – specifies how in an emergency situation, the President will take precedence over the other branches in an ‘Enduring Constitutional Government’; this however puts it in conflict with the National Emergencies Act, a law which preserves Congressional oversight of the President during an emergency. The directive also designates several classified “Continuity Annexes” which have yet to been made accessible to members of the Homeland Security Committee.
• Posse Comitatus Act – Originally set limits on the use of US military forces in the role of a domestic police force. Was granted an exception when directed by the President or act of Congress under the Insurrection Act, has now been further suspended by the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 which allows the military to enforce order in any emergency declared by the President. An eerily prescient fictionalization of this was 1998’s The Siege, where “the secret US abduction of a suspected terrorist leads to a wave of terrorist attacks in New York that lead to the declaration of martial law.” Rendition, sanctioned torture, intervention in Iraq politics, suicide bombings by Islamic extremists, and the revocation of Posse Comitatus by the President are all depicted in New York at a time when the worst domestic terrorist incident was the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
• Office of Legal Counsel – the legal office within the Department of Justice which provides guidance on what the President can do. The current administration has used the Office to push through a number of the justifications for Executive expansion, including the memos authorizing torture, detention, and surveillance. A former head of the agency, Jack Goldsmith, resigned and has written a book (The Terror Presidency) and given a Fresh Air interview about the experience. A similar interview was with reporter Charlie Savage whose book Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy covers the frequent use of ’signing statements’ to allow the President to bypass limitations of signed laws.

While individually these can be attributed to committed attempts to combat the unconventional, ‘asymmetric’ threat of terrorism – or in the case of NSPD51, simple emergency preparedness – the aggregate effect (read: system impact) is a vastly empowered Executive branch with at least some legal cover to seize governmental control in the event of a widely-worded emergency. Those conspiracy-minded of the Left would be quick to make those associations, of course, but a surprising warning comes from former Assistant Treasury Secretary (aka “Father of Reaganomics”) under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, who has baldly called for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney or else “a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.” Taken in concert with President Bush’s latest stay-on-message reaction to the recent intelligence report on Iran’s absent nuclear program (and leaving aside perhaps Roberts’ assertion that any movement on Iran is ultimately about securing Palestine for Israel), where he responded with trademark rhetoric by repeated use of the words ‘danger’ and ‘dangerous’ in reference to Iran gaining nuclear weapons even given the officially-less-likely scenario presented by US intelligence, the message remains solely that we must treat Iran as an enemy, no matter the evidence for or against their being a valid threat.

While Roberts’ scenario of Tom Clancy-esque ‘false flag‘ attacks deserves the same skepticism as similar claims surrounding 9/11, it need not even require an actual attack to set the stage for a coup d’etat as recently demonstrated in Pakistan. Anyone who has watched the events unfold in that country – a President at risk of losing office uses his role as Commander-in-Chief to declare a general emergency and uses sweeping police powers to imprison or muzzle political rivals and restrict the media, all while speaking of unsubstantiated ‘extremist’ threats – may wonder whether that was something that could only happen abroad, or was it just a dry run for next year? At the risk of evoking Von Däniken’s Chariots of the Gods breathless gullibility, are there still concerted efforts to effect a “Pax Americana” according to the Project for the New American Century? To echo the adage that “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you,” it bears noting that “just because it sounds like a conspiracy doesn’t mean it can’t actually happen.”

• In mid-August, under the heading of “Memo to the Dept. of Magical Copyright Enforcement” (an idea which will appear again), the NY Times reported on a series of Harry Potter knock-offs released in China. They detail eight titles and their publisher summaries. Even compared to “sour and sweet rain,” excessive body hair, demons named Little Fatty Fortune, Voldemort’s brother, and an endless menagerie of dragons, the true challenge begins in Harry Potter and the Showdown: “Now what will Harry do about his two girlfriends?”
• During an October stop on her Open Book Tour, JK Rowling answered a number of questions – some of them purely logistical (how does she manage autographs and balance work with home life), a few motivational (why Dobbie [sic - boo NY Post!] dies and Dumbledore confesses his failings), and a couple on the controversy the books have created. On the religious outcry about witchcraft:
  

  “I go to church myself. I don’t take any responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my own religion…I was raised in a Christian tradition. To me, it’s [Christian overtones] always been obvious but I never wanted to talk that openly about it because I thought it might show people just what is the story, where we were going. They’re very British books, so on a very practical note, Harry was bound to find biblical quotations on tombstones. Those two particular quotations that he finds on the tombstones of Godric’s Hollow, they almost epitomize the whole series. I think they sum up all the themes in the whole series. But of course, Hogwarts is a multi-faith school.”

  This is notable in that Rowling both declares her own faith while distancing herself from the detractors among them, and emphasizing religious tolerance even within the walls of Hogwarts. The faith of students is never raised in the series, so the notion that the school is not an incidental seminary as is sometimes the heritage of British boarding schools (Latin, Greek, and Bible study) but purely focused on magickal education is laudable.

• The controversy-as-promotion also gets an airing:
  

  “I’ve always taken my annual inclusion on the most banned books list as a massive compliment. You look at the writers on that list, what can I say? There is a place for debate about issues and there’s certainly a place for debate about what we show our children and what we read to our children, but attempts to ban things are always counterproductive. I met more than one child whose parents didn’t want them to read Harry Potter and of course it became the one and only thing they wanted to read and they read it. In a way, it’s great advertising.”

  Other recent examples of this include Bill O’Reilly’s demonizing of the anti-war Redacted, which has drawn thanks from backer Mark Cuban (“anti-American”) and director Brian de Palma (“a true villain in our country”) for raising its profile and piquing interest in a wider audience; and the Catholic League’s condemnation of The Golden Compass, urging that parents not bring their children to the film, because they might then want to read the book, and then reject Catholicism once they realize the Vatican is secretly responsible for stripping the souls from children in order to protect them from discovering sex.

• In another report on the tour (many of the same quotations appear in different order), Rowling spoke more at length about the role of religion in the overall story arc, particularly the significance of the two opening epigraphs:
  

  “Deathly Hallows itself begins with two religiously themed epigraphs, one from “The Libation Bearers” by Aeschylus, which calls on the gods to “bless the children”; and one from William Penn’s “More Fruits of Solitude,” which speaks of death as but “crossing the world, as friends do the seas.” No other book in the series begins with epigraphs — a curious fact, perhaps, but one that Rowling insists served as a guiding light.

  “I really enjoyed choosing those two quotations because one is pagan, of course, and one is from a Christian tradition,” Rowling said of their inclusion. “I’d known it was going to be those two passages since ‘Chamber’ was published. I always knew [that] if I could use them at the beginning of book seven then I’d cued up the ending perfectly. If they were relevant, then I went where I needed to go.”

• And then at the Carnegie Hall appearance on the book tour, where Rowling did a reading and answered questions for the 1000 grand prize winners, she mentioned that other slightly controversial matter – “I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.” What I expected after this revelation made the headline circuit was a simple progression:
  1. Initial shock, some support from GLAAD and others.
  2. Some fans complain of being ‘betrayed’ by the revelation.
  3. Public outcry from social conservatives.
  4. A scurrilous assertion that Grindelwald is evil for embracing his sexuality, while Dumbledore can only be honorable for having remained closeted.
  5. A deliberate smear campaign suggesting Dumbledore’s relationship with Harry was unwholesome (given that, paralogically, gay = pederast).

  That I have only really run across #1 and #2 to date is either a credit to the overarching popularity of the series, with dissent largely constrained to the usual bywaters, or a willful act on the part of the mainstream press to not seek out the agitators for a condemning pullquote. What I find even more interesting than the revelation itself is the way in which Rowling couched it, and its sole implication on the plot.

  First, she says “I always thought of…” rather than the simple declarative “D = Gay” assignment. This token ambiguity allows us to consider Rowling as perhaps only a more privileged observer of the events in Harry’s world, not the final arbiter, now that the series is finished. This ‘canon view’ would posit that anything not explicitly enumerated in the text of the seven books is left open to each reader’s imagination – including Rowling’s. Contrast this with the ‘revisionist view’ a la George Lucas, where the story is never fixed by past artifact and the author can continue to revise and alter and edit indefinitely, e.g. Han no longer shoots first; or the ‘outline view’ a la Brian Herbert, where a box of unfinished story ideas is tantamount to a final work and the story arc of a series can be definitively concluded by other (arguably lesser) craftsmen. In the canon view, we can read Dumbledore as gay, straight or even asexual, since the text makes no declarations. So when Rowling goes on to elaborate:

  “… Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him.”

  …this adds a new dimension to Dumbledore’s interaction with Grindelwald, putting a new spin on his reluctance to face him in a final duel (although we must still wonder how Grindelwald could have been defeated while wielding the Elder Wand). But, strictly speaking, it is not necessary to understand the plot or even the basic dynamic between the two eventual adversaries – even as kindred minds, equally alive with the prospects of a boundless future available to their joint talents, the betrayal must have been a deep wound for Dumbledore. At the very least, Rowling recognizes the most dire implications of her introspection – “Oh, my god, the fan fiction now, eh?”

  As for the wider response, the most positive reaction is “a gay character in the most popular series in the world is a big step for Jo Rowling and for gay rights.” The polar opposite is sadly predictable, with some complaining that their view of Dumbledore is now “stained” at the least. One woman has campaigned against the series as indoctrinating children into Wicca (having presumably never studied anything about that faith) and holding “an anti-Christian agenda” (for irony, see above). With this new revelation, she warns we must now further caution parents because, “A homosexual lifestyle is a harmful one…that’s proven, medically.” And here, perhaps, is where Rowling’s announcement has the most significance. She has declared her series, in line with critics’ assertions, to have a subversive meaning, with “the Potter books in general … a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry, and I think it’s one of the reasons that some people don’t like the books, but I think that’s it’s a very healthy message to pass on to younger people that you should question authority and you should not assume that the establishment or the press tells you all of the truth.” And there is no question that tolerance and independent, critical thought are two trends which most definitely should not be taught to children, lest we imperil our perfect social order. The aforementioned woman who has sued her school district to ban the books asks, albeit rhetorically, “Is this really what we want for our children? Is this really what we want in our schools?” And yet, is that not precisely what we do want for our children to learn in schools – how to flourish in a pluralistic society and think for themselves?

  [And just to show that the Christian Coalition of America was right to worry that Potter fans will all now want to go gay, you can order your Dumbledore Pride shirts. Will "Dumbledore's Army" be the new "Friends of Dorothy"?]

• Perhaps somewhat overshadowed by the above was Rowling dealing out a few more tidbits, such as Neville marrying Hannah Abbott, who takes over the Leaky Cauldron; Hagrid remains a bachelor; some backstory on the early days of the original Order of the Phoenix; and bits on portrait lore and life debts. More of interest to the canon is her discussion of why Molly Weasley faces off with Bellatrix, how things might have been different if she had gone with her earlier plan to kill off Arthur in book 5, and why Harry just doesn’t get the whole story at the beginning from Dumbledore’s portrait (other than the obvious “because then there’s no plot” answer).
• Adding further ammunition to the ‘Harry Potter is a menace to the conservative faction’ argument is French philosopher Jean-Claude Milner’s assertion that Harry Potter is not only politically liberal, but specifically “a diatribe against Thatcherite Britain.” Painted in neo-Marxist colours, Hogwarts becomes a den of unrest against the Muggle middle-class, blowing up Aunt Marge in HP3 is a satire on Thatcher, and (bizarrely) learning pidgin Latin is a defense against American-exported materialism. Conversely, Milner notes that Voldemort represents the opposite extreme of abandoning things for power over people (read: Sino-Soviet communism?), subverting the rise to power of an apparent ‘underclass’ into an elitist tyranny. Of course, this might be easier to accept were Hogwarts more of a Dickensian workhouse where the suffering children of dirt-poor proletariat parents learn to unionize against the moneyed classes, but the themes of class conflict and blood purity, plus the rather nice accommodations and mostly-ready acceptance of ‘middle-class’ Muggle-borns into their midst does tend to muddy the analogy.
• In the more prosaic vein, we have recently learned of a publishing spat between Warner Bros and then JK Rowling vs HP Lexicon maintainer Steve Vander Ark over the prospect of releasing the site as a compiled book. Why is Warner Bros is seeking an injuction against this unofficial tome with so many other Potter-support volumes already in circulation? From Rowling’s perspective, it is a distinction between commentary (“what happens in book 7?”) and compilation of copyrighted details. The HPL’s perspective is that the book deal was in response to requests from fans, not an attempt to cheat them or WB/Rowling out of due compensation; that all appropriate copyrights were discussed with WB and other contributors and approved; and that the lawsuit only appeared after they questioned the uncredited use of their own material in WB-produced DVDs of the Harry Potter movies, which incorporated timelines verbatim from the site, even including mistakes. This makes this a more complex (and for me, interesting) case because the law gets more vague as you involve questions of approved use and compilations rather than appropriation of copyrighted content.A database of facts cannot be copyrighted, nor can “ideas, themes and facts” on their own, yet events in fictional works can be. Precedents on restricting unofficial ‘companion’ books as violating Fair Use include The Seinfeld Aptitude Test (which was ruled infringing) and The Wind Done Gone (which was ruled a protected parody). From a strictly IANAL reading of the decisions, the critical issues for the Lexicon effort are (a) does the proposed book offer substantive commentary, criticism, etc. in addition to re-statement of characters and events from the series?; and (b) how extensive were the permissions granted by the copyright holders to the site owners? Most of the previously released Harry Potter addenda fall into pretty safe territory under (a), with most either engaging in speculation, analyzing themes, or using the texts in a ‘transformative’ manner, e.g. to act as as a lead-in to teaching other subjects such as physics or philosophy. In other cases where (a) is weak but (b) is not secured by a publisher, an ‘unofficial’ companion guide may exist solely at the forebearance of the copyright holder insofar as it’s non-competitive. That is, if the owner prefers to let the unofficial works act as unpaid advertising for the original works, there is no perceived conflict of interest.Here, Warner Bros has at least a couple potential conflicts. First, any claim by the Lexicon to infringement on the part of WB by including material from the HPL site without attribution can open them to potential damages levied against the DVD profits, which one can reasonably assume are considerable. Second, Rowling has publically stated an interest in pursuing a Harry Potter Encyclopedia project at some future stage, and the publication of the HPL could impact the buyer’s market for that type of resource (in some cases, fan-passion-driven documentation can exceed that of an official nature by orders of magnitude – need to compare the Death Star, Unicron and the HALO ringworld?).More perspectives around the Seinfeld book case are provided by trivia polymath Ken Jennings, who approaches it from the perspective of “who owns the trivia?”
• One of the only real concerns I’ve had about the Half-Blood Prince movie has been partly assuaged with the casting of Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn. Ron’s snogging partner Lavender Brown has also been named as Summerhill actress Jessie Cave, dashing the hopes of thousands of girls who turned out for open casting for the chance to mack on Rupert Grint. Now I just have to wonder how disgusting the Gaunt household will appear, and how Bonnie Wright will measure up to the expanded role and intimacy with Dan Radcliffe required of Ginny, since she’s had practically only one line per movie thus far.
• Finally, on an upbeat (and a sort of ‘up yours’ to the ‘no Harry in schools’ crowd) note: a school in Nottingshire (UK) has turned around its academic performance by presenting the material along a Hogwarts theme. As in, “children dress as their favourite Harry Potter characters, chant spells and use their wands in maths classes at Robert Mellors Primary School.” The school was also duly separated into the four Houses (no word on who gets stuck in Slytherin). Over the past three years, “standards and achievement have improved greatly” and students say “It is easier when you are thinking about Harry Potter – and having fun when you are learning.” How dramatic has the turnaround been? “The school has gone from being in the bottom 25% of all schools in England three years ago to the top 25%.” Best keep this away from our schools, or they may suffer the same fate.

That catches us up more or less to present, although no doubt we have many more laps yet to go.