Harry Potter and the litigation

Discussion in 'Films, Music and All Things Artsy' started by PartTimePongo, Apr 15, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting that she is so opposed to plagiarism, given that she has herself stolen so much from so many other people, yet offers nothing by way of acknowledgement of other people's original work.
     
  2. Think its just you, J.K.Rowling spent years writing the potter books that provided a lot of joy to millions of kids (and adults) around the world, whilst making millions of bucks I agree, so if she gets the arrsehole because some scrote decides to copy all the stuff she wrote and put into a Wicky type 'bible' of potter info to make a fast buck, I for one don't blame her being fcuked off about it :evil: Also any cash she makes is going to charity........or is it just me :roll:
     
  3. "They call me pyrogenica for a reason....."

    Just worked it out :thumright:
     
  4. The odd part for me is that she didn't oppose the thing when it was just a website, but dashed for the brief when he went into print. BBC news this evening said she'd admitted to using the website herself to check details and cross-reference.

    Strange what money and the thought of will do to folk. She's feckin loaded already, not like he's stealing the bread off her table.
     
  5. I can sympathise with why she's done it. I've had times when some sodding git was making money by selling on stuff I'd done. It's fecking annoying let me tell you.

    That'll be Intellectual Property law. It all works on the same principal as trademark. For instance, the website, as long as it's free and the information is only referenced, maps or pictures are self made and quotes are cited, it falls under fair use law. But once it goes into salable print its not covered by fair use.

    At that point, IP rights work just like trade mark and patent law, the IP owner has to defend their rights or they loose them.

    If someone wants to know more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
     

  6. No, its me as well.

    Her books are undoubtedly hugely successful, but I think they are pretty average kids literature. What they are certainly not, in my mind, are something that any adult with more than 1 GCSE should read. When I see otherwise intelligent adults reading kids books, I do despair.

    Actually, I'm getting into the mood for a rant, so I'll go on. :D To me (and I am no expert on them) her books appeal to some rather cloying, prissy upper middle class view of the world - all Hermiones and lacrosse and fee paying schools and piano practice after prep, and braying parents and Merc 4x4s and charming little cottage in Burnham Market for the hols.

    Not that I'm chippy of course.

    Furthermore, she makes some big deal out of the fact she is divorced. Bully for her. Its hardly novel, is it love? Anyone can do that.

    And for her, with her monstrous riches to sue this poor nerd and then simper in a court room that she didn't want to cry because she was British makes me want to ram one of those bloody brooms up her hogwarty arrse.

    There, I 've said it. Cast one of your spells on me, you harridan.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Its her copyright, she is entitled to enforce it. The other person is clearly in the wrong (in my opinion).
     
  8. Well within her rights I would have thought.
    She created Harry Potter, seems a bit presumptious of anyone else to jump on the bandwagon and make money off it.
    Besides she's quite cute and therefor deserving of sympathy
     
  9. Leaving aside for one moment that I too would probably give J.K. Rowling ten minutes of quality time in the bedroom, the woman’s use of other people’s material and her unabashed assimilation (theft?) of other people’s work suggests indefensible hypocrisy of epic proportions.

    Let’s deal with her "assimilation" of other people’s work for a moment. Accepting that all authors do that to some extent, she seems to be eligible for first prize in copyright theft just from her use of characters/names from Lord of the Rings:

    For example:

    Dumbledore – Gandalf
    Dementors – Nazguls
    Harry – Frodo
    Shelob – Aragog (both giants spiders central to stories)
    Wormtongue – Wormtail
    Voldemort – Sauron

    LINK

    Throw in a lot of Enid Byton’s “The Famous Five” and Lord of The Rings, chuck in a bit of the odd Jennings book, and, voila, Potter is born.

    Yet despite this, Rowling has been fairly relentless in pursuit of others who have simply shown their affection of the whole amalgam of Potter that she claims as her own. She has threatened to sue over the release of the documentary about her on the internet (TVCatchup), she has even threatened to sue an Indian village who built a temporary copy of a Hogwarts type building for a carnival celebrating the release of her film. LINK

    Let’s not confuse American IP law with that of the UK, there is a world of difference between USC17 and the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, and little issues such as “fair use” don’t actually apply outside of the USA – something omitted to a large extent in the Wiki articles.

    Don’t get me wrong, the stories are quite enjoyable, but they are by no means all Rowling’s own original creative work. She has done well to have risen to where she is today, but her constant bleating about theft of “her” work is becoming tiresome and reveals the unattractive face of avarice that lurks behind her public relations mask of being the charitable, caring person her agents would have us all believe. At the end of the day, she was a misfit in society with aspirations of grandeur, an ability to abosrb other people's characters and plots into her own work, and she got lucky.

    I'd still read her books, and I'd still give her one, but that is my opinion on the issue of her prsemption of hurt innocence when others do to her as she did to others.
     
  10. If she wants to protect her property, then she can take this publication into her portfolio and publish it through her own offices surely. I seem to remember there was some talk of her doing a lexicon herself? So she can bung this compilist a few quid for his efforts, et voila, all that work saved, and she owns the thing.

    Still a bit more publicity never hurts does it. The whole thing just feels grubby to my mind.
     
  11. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    What a hot topic Ms Rowling is, second to Andy McNab I do declare.

    Anyway, my take on it.

    Its nicking her work and she should sue.

    She gives millions every year to charities so anyone that witters on about her being rich can only be a communist. I believe she's already said that any winnings from this case will be going to, I believe, a cancer charity. Fingers crossed fro them then.

    Original work? After the bible very little is original.

    Dumbledore – Gandalf - Jesus
    Dementors – Nazguls - Romans
    Harry – Frodo - David (as in Goliath
    Shelob – Aragog (both giants spiders central to stories) - OK, you got me there
    Wormtongue – Wormtail - worms
    Voldemort – Sauron - The Devil

    etc

    Its all good vs evil and plucky little fellah story. Been running for centuries in one guise or another.
     
  12. I agree with you, at least the judge has told them to try and sort it out of court, money eh! can't live with it, can't live without it :roll:
     
  13. I don't agree with you at all but have to concede that your post is amusing - which is fortunate given that it's the last thing you will have done before being turned into a newt. If you haven't posted again by next week should we assume that the 'harridan' has got you?