Luna's Ceiling

"The Graveyard Book" Neil Gaiman's Newberry Award Winning Book!

2009-02-10T09:03:05Z

Despite having recently won the Newbery Medal for best children's book, Neil Gaiman occasionally suggests children weren't his intended audience in The Graveyard Book. He mentions European librarians have the book shelved in both the adult and children's sections, while American librarians argue over placing it in the children's or young adult sections. Gaiman seems not too concerned, hoping that all have access to it; I agree. It is an excellent book for readers of any age.

While the book clearly entertains concepts such as death that might bother the youngest readers, the author deals with the subject in such a warm and positive manner, I would have welcomed reading it with my children when they were younger. The story begins with a murder by the villain "the Man Jack," of a family, well all but one small toddler who manages to escape as he likes to explore and wander. The boy finds an open door and makes his way to a graveyard situated near his home. His parents, newly dead, arrange with the ghosts inhabiting the graveyard to care for their young son left behind in life. A lovely couple the Owens, childless in life, welcome the opportunity to raise the young boy who they decide to name Nobody. The boy is nicknamed Bod for short.

Rules of the graveyard dictate that ghosts cannot leave the graveyard where their bones are buried. A guardian is needed who is not bound by these rules to insure that food and other earthly needs can be obtained for young Bod. A being neither of the world of the dead or the living, Silas, agrees to be the guardian. I loved the choice of name for the guardian as it seemed an homage to Silas Marner that perfectly summarizes the relationship of Silas and Bod. Fortunately citizens of the graveyard include many teachers, a doctor and assorted eyewitnesses to history through the ages, so educating and caring for Bod is less daunting than one might think. Bod is afforded protection of the graveyard and learns some skills of the dead, such as dreamwalking and fading, in addition to his other lessons.

I found the education of young Bod to be completely delightful and entertaining. The graveyard is inhabited by ghosts of those who lived throughout the ages. The oldest is Caius Pompeus, a Roman soldier, who Bod seeks out occasionally to learn the history of the graveyard. The site has been full for some time and is designated a historic landmark. Perhaps the most recent inhabitants died in the early 1900's. When Bod finally does make a brief foray into the school system run by the living, his teachers are rather confounded by the "stuff" he includes in his history exams.

The book covers Bod's formative years and includes stories or events that depict his development and growing desire to be among the living as well. Because Bod cannot be fully protected outside the graveyard, the threat to his safety must be confronted and defeated. The threat, of course, is the Man Jack who failed to kill him along with his family members. Silas has been working toward this end on some increasingly longer trips away from the graveyard. In his absence another caretaker, Miss Lupescu who calls herself one of the Hounds of God, cares for Bod. Despite a rocky start to their relationship, Bod grows quite fond of Miss Lupescu from whom he learns some valuable information. Under Miss Lupescu's care Bod takes a rather humorous trip as a captive of ghouls. The ghouls are all deceased politicians.

The book has all the elements of a fantasy children's tale, including prophesies and other worldly beings. One could easily look at the story as a coming of age or as something of the hero journey. Gaiman includes the ingredients and stirs things up a bit with a fresh take on the genre. At it's heart, I saw a story of a rather unusual but very loving family preparing the young to leave the nest. Gaiman mentioned that most of the mail he receives from adults includes admissions of crying at the end. I must include myself in that group. This does not foretell the end, btw. There are certainly a mix of emotions to be experienced toward the end, not the least of which includes a large dose of sadness that you've reached the end.

I would place this high on my list of favorites in children's books though I love several for many different reasons. Gaiman's writing is exceptional, which was really a pleasant surprise. This was the first Gaiman book I have read and I am certain it won't be the last.

The Lexicon is already in some bookstores!

2009-01-12T20:22:50Z

January 12, 2009 was the scheduled release date and as planned this book is available now on Amazon and in some bookstores. I hear that there may be release events on Friday and Saturday. Steve also mentioned that pre-ordered books were to be in the mail as of last Friday. So yayyy, it should be here soon

I saw this information on Facebook where I have just set up a Facebook page! Feel free to friend request me.

Fly Eagles Fly

2009-01-11T21:18:16Z

Cause the Birds - you just have to love them!

A Game of Thrones

2009-01-05T20:57:54Z

I finished reading A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin last night and have already moved on to the next book in the Song of Ice and Fire Series, A Clash of Kings. The book is 800+ pages so it took a while to get through. The first part of the book took more time to get through since there are loads of characters and getting the lay of the land takes some time. The last portion of the book is really engrossing and flies.

"When you play the game of thrones, you win or die. There is no middle ground."
This line from AGOT resonates through this book particularly for a few characters who appear to be in line of succession for the Iron Throne. The most intriguing characters were Daenerys Targaryen, Tyrion Lannister and probably Jon Snow. The series features characters who give new meaning to the word grey. In sharp contrast to HP where most are at least in the author's mind either good or bad, this book is filled with characters who leave you wondering whether they are aligned with good or evil. Littlefinger and Varys the eunuch definitely kept you guessing. There are two main families in this book, the Starks and the Lannisters. A third family Targaryen is introduced mainly through background information and through two characters Danaerys and her brother Viserys.

I have questions that I take from this book into the next: Who are Jon Snow's parents, did Danaery's son really die, what will happen to Sansa and the boy hitler she is betrothed to? There are plenty more but those come to mind immediately. If you know those answers don't tell me.

Here is a cool banner from vanity_made that depicts another great line from the book as well. This will be a fun series to read especially with the upcoming HBO series on A Game of Thrones and the long awaited release of the 5th book in the series. I feel as though I came to the series at a good time.

Happy New Year!!!

2009-01-01T09:23:52Z

One of the things I am looking forward to this year is the Middle School production of "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying." My son got a part after trying out at the urging of his friends who later dropped out. I am proud of him for sticking out the audition process which has to be tough on a 14 year old boy and landing the part of the book voice. He is also going to be in the scene for Brotherhood of Man with a little solo and plenty of song and dance. I am sure this means I will end up painting the entire set but hey I live for this crap.

I have also been considering what I might do with myself now that the kids are pretty self sufficient and I have a lot less volunteer stuff to do than when they were younger. I have been trying to get a job in social work or psychology but having been out of the field for 8 or 9 years hurts on top of entering a weak job market. The money stinks too which is a big drawback. I am considering options such as painting murals and faux finishes since I do get calls for jobs occasionally despite not really marketing myself as an artist. Despite a weak economy, I live in an area that is close to some very wealthy neighborhoods. If I can make this work, I think I would prefer doing the murals. I am still thinking on it though.

I have so much to be grateful for at the end of this year. My daughter is being taken off the immune suppressants to give it a go without drugs to see if she is in a remission of her autoimmune disease as yet still unnamed. She is going to have a minor surgery to clear up some damage to her vocal chords next week but it looks as though she is doing much better. She got all A's and one B+ in her first semester at Penn so that was great too. Hopefully one of these days she'll decide what she wants to do but hey I am still figuring that out so I don't have room to talk there.

I am also grateful for the many new friends I have found along the way this year while we discussed "The Book that Lived." Truly, I have learned a good deal that I never expected to learn about copyright law but more than that I have cherished the relationships made in the process. Rattlesnake Central, run by the wonderful rattlesnakeroot aka Silver Ink Pot was a hopping spot this year. A famed Samoan copyright guru was known to stop there for a bit of news on occasion. SIP, you amaze me. Bluestocking's Blog garnered the attention of Roger Rappoport and the Hammer himself. What a pleasure it has been to get to know bluestocking while benefitting from her legal expertise. Of course, I can't forget the author himself hp_lexicon who managed to survive the whole ordeal and publish two books "In Search of Harry Potter, and "The Lexicon."

In the process of debating copyright law and the merits of the case known as WB/JKR v RDR/SVA, I met some fantastic people some who I agreed with and some who had differing opinions. First here is the always witty aredwitch and her friends at Harry's Request Arianhrod/Kristin, jezebel64,and a_waffling. Through Rattlesnake Central I found HPN and great people like clair_de_lalune,lemon_ashwinder and sciencegeek and many others. I think we picked up saiphgrl hitch hiking along the side of the road somewhere, ha jk;) I can't forget the always charming gaspodia who takes breaks from Singstar and collecting shiny things to say hello or offer words of wisdom.

From Leaky we have weerdone who made my day when she occasionally agreed with me but was always delightful when she disagreed as well. There is lindenswallow and teaqueenie who pop in from time to time. Now I would be remiss if I failed to mention the inimitable davidenglish who even earned his own entry tag on Rattlesnake Central. Despite the occasional flare up, debating davidenglish is always an entertaining and challenging proposition. No matter the sides a fair amount of learning took place and together we formed a unique brotherhood/sisterhood hey roll with me here... So I leave with a tribute to my son and my friends each who I wish a very Happy New Year.

Christmas Wrap Up

2008-12-26T23:36:10Z

So, today I am recovering from the massive dinner for 20 I have once a year for my family and in-laws on Christmas. This is a beast of a dinner that I have made into a monster. The first year I had it I made the mistake of making Le Bec-Fin crabcakes so now everyone expects them every year. I usually make a tenderloin roast with bernaise sauce so we had that as well. For sides I have redskin mashed potatoes and Potatoes gratin with mustard and cheddar cheese, green beans with roasted peppers in balsamic vinaigrette and candied carrots. We had cheesecake, tiramisu, and a Philly classic Stocks pound cake. Top this all off with a the case of champagne my brother in law contributed and we had about an 8 hour feast that I am sure has some feeling not so terrific today.

This whole out-of-control dinner started the year my father died as an effort to have everyone together for dinner instead of one visit with my family and dinner with my in laws or vice versa. I got what I asked for so now I am left with spoils of doing this once a year. Generally, this wouldn't be so bad except for timing everything to come out at the same time. I think it might be easier to establish Middle East peace than to get everything ready for serving at the same time. By the time the dinner is on the table I am ready for the rag bag.

It's usually about this time that some of the craziness starts to unfold. I was reading an article about holiday movies which made the point that we like movies that show families more dysfunctional than our own. There is definitely some comedy that unfolds during these dinners that might make these movies look tame. Truth be told, I don't know anyone who doesn't describe their family as dysfunctional and perhaps one of the benefits of age is getting past the point where you are tangled in the dysfunction enough to watch it unfold as if it were a movie. I am not all the way there yet but my husband and I had a good joking debate on whose family was more dysfunctional. Mine won this year but he added in a moment of wisdom, "so far." We have about 5 more days for his family to win but I am pretty sure he knows it is unlikely. At least we can laugh about it. So how was your Christmas?

Happy Holidays!

2008-12-23T16:34:42Z

Here are a few pictures of my home decorated for Christmas. I hope that all my friends have a wonderful holiday and a very happy New Year!

</div>

Graduation

2008-06-21T17:04:53Z

Wednesday my daughter graduated from high school. You'll have to indulge me a bit while I flat out brag about her. She graduated fourth in her class of 600. She was shooting for valedictorian but missed by some ridiculous thousandths of a point on her gpa. Who knew it came down to that kind of difference in points. They are doing away with it next year because it puts too much pressure and emphasizes the wrong values in education. She would have been better off had she not taken music because it is not a weighted grade. If she had taken a study hall she would have been better off under the current system. When her counselor explained all this to her she decided to shoot for top ten and she was plenty proud of herself when the top ten students were announced at graduation. Needless to say her father and I were pretty proud as well.

Here are a few pictures of her with her friends. There is one with my husband and son. I, of course, avoided the picture by taking it.

Tim Wu on Tolerated Use

2008-05-24T01:10:09Z

Columbia Law professor Tim Wu has posted an article that he intends to publish in a law review on tolerated use of secondary and derivative works that complement (without substituting) for the original. In my opinion, this article has clearly been inspired by the Lexicon trial. In his opening, Wu refers to fan websites as "marketing." that in plain economic terms adds value to the original:

"One reason that many uses of copyrighted works are tolerated is that they cause no harm to, and in fact help, the owner of the original copyrighted work. For example, if I create a film that is obscure, and a fan creates a loving website for the film that uses images from the film, it is probably the case that the fan has infringed. Nonetheless it is also obvious that the web site creates value for the owner of the original work. In fact, many fan websites and other tolerated uses are exactly the kind of thing that content creators pay for when it is called “marketing.”

In economic terms, what the fan has created is called a complement (as opposed to a substitute) – a good that makes another good more valuable. For those unfamiliar with this concept, examples are plentiful. More lenses make my camera more valuable. The sale of screws makes a screwdriver more valuable. My coffeemaker becomes more valuable the more varieties of coffee are available. And so on."

I am finishing my copyright paper on “Tolerated Use.” Since most stuff published in law reviews never shows up in search engines, I’m going to post parts of the article that might be interesting, here. No footnotes, obviously.

Tolerated Use

Tim Wu

Cite as: Tim Wu, Tolerated Use, Columbia Program on Law & Tech Working Paper (2008).

Better Treatment for Complements

One reason that many uses of copyrighted works are tolerated is that they cause no harm to, and in fact help, the owner of the original copyrighted work. For example, if I create a film that is obscure, and a fan creates a loving website for the film that uses images from the film, it is probably the case that the fan has infringed. Nonetheless it is also obvious that the web site creates value for the owner of the original work. In fact, many fan websites and other tolerated uses are exactly the kind of thing that content creators pay for when it is called “marketing.”

In economic terms, what the fan has created is called a complement (as a opposed to a substitute) – a good that makes another good more valuable. For those unfamiliar with this concept, examples are plentiful. More lenses make my camera more valuable. The sale of screws makes a screwdriver more valuable. My coffeemaker becomes more valuable the more varieties of coffee are available. And so on.

Now while is this relevant? I am suggesting that one of the chief problems in the present copyright world and its patterns of mass, tolerated infringement is that the law is not sensitive to complementarity. One way of helping ease the whole problem of massive casual infringement is to make the complementary-nature of the work more explicitly the leading determiner of whether a given secondary work is considered a reproduction or adaptation of the work under §§106(1)-(2), or fair use under §107.

We can begin with the example of a book review. It is sometimes stated that a book review would be infringing if it weren’t protected by the fair use doctrine, particularly if it quotes from the source. But the prior question should be asked: whether a usual book review is an infringement at all, regardless of fair use.

The text of the adaptation right seems to suggest that the answer is to be “no.” The question, based on the definition of “derivative work” is §101 is whether the original work is either listed in the text, or in some way “recast, transformed, or adapted.” It seems a implausible to suggest that a book review is the adaptation or recasting of a book into a new form, in the sense that a novel is recast into a play. Hence the conclusion reached by Judge Richard Posner in the Beanie Baby case, Ty, Inc. v. Publications Int’l, which asks, among other things, whether a collector’s guide to a series of stuff animals is an derivative work. He writes there that “a collectors’ guide to a series of copyrighted works is no more a derivative work than a book review is.”

Unfortunately, courts – in particular the Second Circuit, sometimes act as if anything related to or somehow borrowing from the original has been “recast, transformed, or adapted.” In Twin Peaks Productions v. Publications International, concerning a guide to the Twin Peaks series, the court summarily concluded that the guide was a derivative work by simply saying “the Book contains a substantial amount of material from the teleplays, transformed from one medium into another.” Unlike the Seventh Circuit approach, the Twin Peaks approach, taken with little evident thought, turns almost every secondary work into a derivative work.

The other possibility is that a book review is an infringing reproduction that is “substantially similar” to the original. On first reading, the idea that a book review is a copy of a book seems plainly ridiculous (unless, of course, it were just a disguised abridgement of the book). The question gets a bit harder if we speak of a book review that includes quotations from the book. Nonetheless, while realizing some of the caselaw goes in other directions (discussed below) I don’t see how it makes any sense to think that a book review, even with quotes, satisfies the classic idea of a copy being something that usurps the market for the original, by appealing to and drawing away the same audience. This is the idea of a copy in the Second Circuit’s Arnstein v. Porter, which says that he owner’s “legally protected interest is in … the potential financial returns from his compositions, which derive from the lay public’s approbation of his efforts.” The court decides infringement by deciding, “whether defendant took from plaintiff’s works so much of what is pleasing to the ear of lay listeners, who comprise the audience for whom such popular music is composed, that defendant wrongly appropriated something which belongs to the plaintiff.”

This statement in Arnstein reflects the idea of an illegal copy stealing the market for the original product. That view also anchors the work of Professor Paul Goldstein, whose work on the distinction between derivative and reproduction rights is foundational. In his 1983 paper, Derivative Rights And Derivative Works In Copyright, Goldstein is in search of “the point at which the right ‘to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies’ leaves off and the right ‘to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work’ begins.” It is, he says “that point at which the contribution of independent expression to an existing work effectively creates a new work for a different market.” That means that the “infringer who copies a novel verbatim violates only the right to reproduce, for he has created neither independent expression nor a new market. But the derivative work right is infringed differently: “By contrast, motion pictures, translations and comic strips based on the novel will all infringe the derivative right because they add new expressive elements and serve markets that differ from the market in which the original was first introduced.”

But sometimes we find language that don’t reflect this understanding of what a substantially similar reproduction is – language that seems to focus on brute fact of reproduction of even some small amount of the original work, regardless of whether the result is to create a product that competes with the original. Sometimes, and crucially, this language comes from cases that are not true cases of changing genres: they feature, instead, two competing products, and a contest over the idea-expression dichotomy. That’s why it is dangerous to misuse nuggets such as “no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.” That phrase is from Learned Hand’s famous Sheldon opinion – one in which there was no question that the original play at issue in that case (“Dishonored Lady”) would be competition with the defendant’s film (“Letty Lynton”). The quote pertains to the idea-expression dichotomy, not the question of market competition.

But other times courts, especially the Second Circuit, have loosely allowed the reproduction right to expand so as to cover what is really a derivative work. The worst offender is the Second Circuit’s “Seinfeld” case, Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., which asks whether a trivia game (the “Seinfeld Aptitude Test”) infringes the copyright in the television show Seinfeld.

In the Seinfeld case, the court managed to find that a trivia game is a copy of a TV show. The absurdity of that result seems to speak for itself. The idea of finding a trivia game to be any kind of substitute for the original show seems laughable. And that something is deeply wrong is obvious from the opinion itself, which struggles painfully with tests designed for two works competing in the same market, like that from Learned Hand’s Peter Pan (where the question is whether “the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard [the] aesthetic appeal [of the two works] as the same”). It doesn’t make any sense to compare the market appeal of a trivia game and TV show because they do not compete. Similarly, stumped with how to compare the “concept and feel” of a TV show the court simply declined altogether, saying that works in “different genres and media, must necessarily have a different concept and feel.” What the court should have said is that works in different genres are simply not covered by the reproduction right.

A case like Seinfeld is so confused because, at risk of repeating myself, it is absurd to ask whether products that remotely in the same market or genre are copies of each other. It is like asking whether the Superbowl is a copy of “War and Peace,” or whether the LSAT is a copy of Star Wars – the question is nonsense to begin with. It serves as an example of what Felix Cohen once described as law’s tendency to create “pseudo problems, devoid of meaning.”

But like many such questions, the answers have a consequence. And the consequence of cases like Castle Rock is to create genre-spanning reproduction right that helps create the mass infringement problem we’ve discussed in this paper, by making nearly anything that draws on the original an infringement of either §106(1) or 106(2), unless it is fair use.

The better approach, tracking the Seventh Circuit’s suggestions, is as follows. The question of reproduction should be what Arnstein and Paul Goldstein suggest: a copy is a work that misappropriates the market that the original product reasonably could have expected to capture. An adaptation, meanwhile, is a work that is at least a partial substitute for the original product, in the sense of taking that product and adapting it to a different medium, yet retaining the basic structure and purpose of the original product. And finally, a pure complement, like a book review, or yes, a trivia game, is outside of both the §§106(1) and 106(2) rights altogether.

Some might say that this approach strips the adaptation right of any scope. The approach is certainly in tension with some of the caselaw, though it is supported by some as well. But in defense of the approach, I point out that the right of adaptation between media remains – preserving such things as film rights, translations, photocopies of magazine articles, and book versions of a ballet, all of which substitute in part for the original rather than complement it. What would be excluded from the adaptation right under this reading are works which share some content but do not share the object of the original – like fan sites which report information about a show, but which cannot replace the story-telling aspect of the show itself.

I don’t deny that a broad adaptation right, even one that covers complements, may create incentives for authors or publishers to invest more initially. But a too-broad definition of reproduction or adaptation, that leaves nearly nothing out, creates ridiculous results as well. As we’ve already seen, it has created the right so broad that it is no longer even in the interest of owners to try and enforce it. My suggestion is that this construction of the adaptation doctrine might prove a useful way for reducing the pressure created by great expansion of tolerated use. It would move much valuable secondary usage of copyrighted works into a different category — such works would not be adaptations at all, and hence would not have to be ‘tolerated’. Instead, they would simply be works falling outside the ownership of the initial creator.

Another and to my view messier approach is to more rigorously understand complements as generally falling under the heading of fair use. In brief I am suggesting that judges should straightforwardly declare that uses that do not substitute for the original, and instead make the original more valuable, should be considered fair use, end of story.

Today this conclusion is already occasionally reached using factors one and four of the fair use doctrine. Courts examine the purpose of the use, with particularly interest in whether it is transformative and/or commercial. They also ask whether the use in question will substitute in the market. These questions are a way of getting at the idea that a use of the copyrighted work to create a complementary good should be a fair use.

In the current case law, however, the approach is inconsistent and the results often at odds with what I have suggested. Again the Seinfeld case is a good example of how wrong this can go. The court decided the fair use issue by concluding that the trivia game would substitute, not for the TV show, but for a potential trivia game created by the owner:

“…Our concern is not whether the secondary use suppresses or even destroys the market for the original work or its potential derivatives, but whether the secondary use usurps or substitutes for the market of the original work. … The SAT [the “Seinfeld Aptitude Test,” the trivia game] substitutes for a derivative market that a television program copyright owner such as Castle Rock ‘would in general develop or license others to develop.’”

As we discussed before, the court never figured out whether, in fact, the trivia game was actually a derivative work owned by the owner – and the statutory definition of derivative work actually puts that in doubt. But once it assumes that the trivia game is a derivative work, the court’s method means that any secondary work inescapably must be in competition with the imagined derivative.

It goes nearly without saying that the approach is a classic example of “if value then right,” whose problem is circularity. As Felix Cohen wrote in 1935 on the same problem in trademark, the “vicious circle inherent in this reasoning is plain.” The method “purports to base legal protection upon economic value,” wrote Cohen, “when, as a matter of actual fact, the economic value of a sales device depends upon the extent to which it will be legally protected.”

The objection to my complement-centered approach is already hinted at: that if complements to original works are either protected, the author may lose income. But it is not completely clear that that is true, based on the definition of what a complement is. There are costs incurred by ignoring the economics of complements. By definition, the complement increases the value of the original work, and in a world of high volume and low value complements, licensing of them is difficult. Today, many pure complements are already tolerated; were they clearly made legal, more might be produced.

Wu's suggested approach would have tremendous impact on fansites such as The Leaky Cauldron, Mugglenet and many others. Infringing material would not have to be tolerated and under threat of removal since it would be legally protected. Such cites report on and build enthusiasm for the original work but do not compete with it directly. This would have the additional benefit of protecting the high dollar markets such as licensed movie adaptations for the author. Other copyright experts have expressed a desire to open that market believing that the movie licensed and clearly influenced by the author will likely be the best anyway. Such an approach would allow multiple versions of the Potter movies that would compete with the licensed Warner Brothers version. Personally I think this might be a bit of an extreme change that might harm the author unnecessarily. I will freely admit that I haven't really examined the arguments for such a change very closely, however.

What I like about Wu's approach is that it deals with the concerns raised in the Lexicon case head on. Clearly any author who wants to write a complementary work such as an encyclopedia can claim infringement and effectively destroy the market for a competing entry. Without the benefit of Stanford pro-bono involvement, RDR would be completely at a loss to effectively make their case in court. The copyright owner, in effect, can expand their copyright protection by virtue of deeper pockets rather than the strength of their case.

lunas_ceiling @ 2008-05-13T03:36:00

2008-05-13T07:54:56Z

For my friend Mark, who left this world sadly and suddenly May 7,2008, you will be missed. Here is a song for the happier days when we all drank a bit much at the Jersey shore and sang along with Tom Jones:

It's not unusual, Mark, you were loved and our world is changed without you.

Happy Mother's Day!

2008-05-11T18:20:30Z

My favorite "mommyism" lately is "raising teenagers is like nailing jello to a tree." These are my two teenagers

Joey looks a bit older now than in this picture. He is 14.
This is my daughter Jess who is 18.
Jessica is heading off to college in the fall. I can't believe how fast that all went. I know she is thrilled and excited for the changes to come but I am going to miss her like crazy. For all my friends who are moms:

lunas_ceiling @ 2008-05-10T13:31:00

2008-05-10T17:48:23Z

Here are links for the final briefs filed by the plaintiffs and defense in the Warner Brothers/J K Rowling v RDR books trial. These are not for the faint of heart. The plaintiffs filing is 169 pages and certainly could use the readers guide the judge requested. The defense brief is a merciful 55 pages.
WB/JKR Findings of Fact & Law
RDR Findings of Fact & Law