Rowling wins lawsuit vs. Web site operator

J.K. Rowling won her copyright infringement lawsuit against a fan and Web site operator who was set to publish a Potter encyclopedia.

Here's the link to the article: Rowling wins lawsuit against Web site operator

Terry

 

Well, I read the article and I can't find a single thing to care about. It seems like a fairly straightforward case; the judge went out of his way to say that supplementary books and reference works are fine and dandy, it's just this particular one that went too far over the line.

And the award was quite small, compared to the sorts of nonsense that happen over this side of the Pond.

A bit dry all around, really.

 

I'm not a Rowling fan.

I think the point being taken is the limit set with respect to copyright infringement. May be dry, but relevant to writers.

Terry

 

This is the guy who decided to publish a harry potter encyclopedia after Rowling said she'd be interested in writing harry potter encyclopedia's isn't it?

 

Something like that. Hence why I'm not even that interested in the copyright law ruling; it seems pretty clear that the dude was stepping considerably over the fair-use line.

 

Rowling, dear, won't you please step out from the spotlight long enough for us to see that Stephanie Myer writes with more substance?

I refuse to respect that woman or her books. Generally, if you can find meaning in someone's writing, I'd say mission accomplished. Her, on the other hand...

 

I would agree the story of Harry Potter is a little lacking in substance, but Stephanie Meyer is exactly the best example of a more substanceful piece. Some one Like orson Scott Card, or JR Tolkien...

 

Don't diss Harry Potter

But you can diss Rowling. I don't mind. I don't really like her much.

 

Oh, I dunno. There were moments in Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix that approached depth and complexity. I can recommend the books as mindless fun without many twinges of conscience.

Rowling herself is just a money-mad loony at this point.

 

Exactly.

So true about Rowling.

 

LOL that's exactly what I was just about to say.
As if she isn't rich enough already.
Oh noez!

 

*shrugs*

It is nice to know that it is actually possible to make it big, writing.

 

I would want to protect my characters and my work from copyright infringement if I were published. Money would have little to do with it. I REALLY doubt Rowling took this guy to court just to get some money out of him. So if she's considered "money mad" just because she wants to protect her property...I fail to see why. :/

Sounds kind of like sour grapes to me. Didn't Stephanie Meyer (sic?) get upset recently because somebody posted some of her (copyrighted) work online...? Is she loony too then?

 

She's actually going to delay the next installment of her series because that happened.

 

I get a lot of people coming in to work asking about Twilight by Stephanie Meyer but I've never bothered to find out what it's all about.

And I still can't be bothered.

Boo Rowling, she comes across as such a sour grape in real life.

 

You mean the encyclopedia? Well... I can wait... forever...

 

She's money-mad because of the way she's pimped her property like a three-dollar hooker. This court case is actually quite reasonable all around.

Hence why I'd rather make snide remarks about the woman herself than talk about this unsurprising judgement.

 

To me, her personality or likeability isn't the issue. I'm glad to see the judge ruling to protect an author's intellectual property, but somewhat disturbed by the mediocre level of the decision.

I don't like to see some parasite deriving a profit upon someone else's intellectual property without the originators consent and creative control.

 

No, I meant the next installment of the series written by Ms. Meyer. I've never read the books, so I don't know what the name of it is.

 

Oh. I thought you meant Rowling.

And the book was Midnight Sun.

 

Owkay, me going to get defensive of all the people slagging of J.K.Rowling, a woman who I am willing to bet none have you have even met. In refenece to ehr books having no sabtance, yea, good overcoming evil, standing by your friends and family and just being an enjoyable read are really stupid things to see in a book.

For the person who called her a "money-mad looney" - and who exactly would you know this. From what you have read in the papers? Someone said it on TV once? Since she is already richer than the Queen, I am sure an extra couple of grand or whatever is going to make much difference. More likely she wanted to protect something that was hers, and an idea she had already expressed she would like to make an encyclopedia.

Sorry, but I really cannot stand mindless bitching about people who you don't even know, expecially when a lot of this sounds like sour grapes.

Rant Over.

 

This seems to have gone way off topic. This thread isn't about whether you like Harry Potter or JK Rowling. It's about the issue of copyright, in this instance. You will keep this thread civil, and on topic, or I'll delete threads.

 

Those are excellent things the read in a book, and by no means was the comment intended to suggest the book wasn't worth reading or was un-fun. It was very fun and very worth it.

The comment is more directed at a substantial lack of underlying meaning in the story line. Harry gets in trouble, his friends come to the rescue, they beat evil. Great stuff but frankly it doesn't feel as filling as it could of been.

Take a look at Star Wars (A story with similar plot line). it has a significantly higher amount of substance due to every even having some underlying meaning. Luke is very similar to Harry, but Luke's trials and hardships seem so much more pronounced do to his constant threat of making his fathers mistake and being haunted by it. Luke constantly walks a thin line between the Light and the Dark Side. It makes his eventually triumph so much more profound and even more so Darth Vader's redemption has to be a top movie moment for me.

Harry Potter just lacked this so badly. Was there ever any doubt that Harry was going to win? Did he ever even stray from the good path? Not really. Sure there were a few parts where it looked like he might but they never lasted that long and were immediately rectified and he seemingly went back to Business as Usual, save for the last two books in the series.

As for the copy right issue, rowling has every right to control and regulate her creations. This guy seems like a bit of a silly nilly for trying to publish a Harry potter encyclopedia after rowling said she was planning to do so. Its his own fault he's gotten into this mess.

 

I didn't like Rowling's face as she was walking out of the courtroom. However, that aside, I agree that she had a right to follow through with the lawsuit. What I think what it really should have boiled down to in court was "intent". RDR had already agreed to halt plans for publication. Wasn't that enough? And that's why my sentiments lay with Vander Ark. After browsing several articles I still don't find any malicious intent for reaping profits there at all.

In suing one of her fans who labored several years and was asked by other fans and then RDR to publish the HPL, she has all the legal right. Morally, I find that questionable.

 

Why? The fans labors, regardless of how lengthy, were founded upon her intellectual property, which he or she had no right to use without permission to create a new commercial product.

Still think expending effort writing fanfic is a good idea?

You don't get "squatters rights" for setting up your tent on someone else's intellectual property, no matter if you stay for seasons and plant your own gardens and orchards.