PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter Enclopedia Blocked


Davian93
09-08-2008, 04:30 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/09/08/harry.potter.lwwawsuit.ap/index.html

So Rowling didn't have an issue when she used it as an online reference but when the guy wants to make a bit of money off of it...all of a sudden its wrong. Rowling's a witch.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-08-2008, 04:32 PM
Page Not Found.

ShadowbaneX
09-08-2008, 04:53 PM
Page Not Found.
appearently she didn't like the news article either.

Anaiya Sedai
09-08-2008, 05:00 PM
lol.
jay always calls rowling a money hungry b!tch...

tworiverswoman
09-08-2008, 05:12 PM
try this link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/09/08/harry.potter.lawsuit.ap/index.html) instead. Somehow, Davian managed to spell "lawsuit" as "lwwawsuit"...

ShadowbaneX
09-08-2008, 05:13 PM
well money's good, but there's another thing about being so controlling: she didn't let hollywood royally fuck up the films. I'm certain if she hadn't been such a hardass they would have been unrecognizable.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-08-2008, 05:22 PM
He's got a point there.

tworiverswoman
09-08-2008, 05:40 PM
Incidentally -- the WoT Encyclopedia seems to have gone bye-bye... :(

irerancincpkc
09-08-2008, 06:03 PM
I don't know; she's never really bothered me. She writes good books and helps make good movies. Not much to really dislike...

Terez
09-08-2008, 06:09 PM
Incidentally -- the WoT Encyclopedia seems to have gone bye-bye... :(
It does that every now and then...

Bryan Blaire
09-08-2008, 07:43 PM
SBX, that didn't stop Lucas from making the Prequel Trilogy not live up to what it should have been... ;)

ShadowbaneX
09-08-2008, 09:13 PM
that's because Lucas cannot write, script or direct. Rowling did none of those things. She let other people do it and just kept creative control.

What's the best Star Wars movie?
Which Star Wars movie wasn't directed by Lucas?

Chances are the answer's the same...I wonder if that's a coincindence.

Ishara
09-09-2008, 08:45 AM
I'm sorry, but I'm not following here...

She came up with the idea of HP. She wrote it. She had it published. The guy who manges the online encyclopedia is a FAN. He may write fanfic in his spare time, but that doesn't make him the writer. It makes him the fan.

To profit off of someone else's idea isn't right.

Look, if someone had published the BWB without consent from RJ, people here wuold be fuh-reaking right out. But because another author is preventing someone from doing exactly that - taking her idea, and earning profit off of it - she's greedy. It just doesn't follow.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 08:53 AM
Thank you, Ishara! I'm fairly certain everyone on here knows my stance on copyrights. Hell, I thought Metallica did a good thing in shutting down Napster.

Davian93
09-09-2008, 09:18 AM
I'm sorry, but I'm not following here...

She came up with the idea of HP. She wrote it. She had it published. The guy who manges the online encyclopedia is a FAN. He may write fanfic in his spare time, but that doesn't make him the writer. It makes him the fan.

To profit off of someone else's idea isn't right.

Look, if someone had published the BWB without consent from RJ, people here wuold be fuh-reaking right out. But because another author is preventing someone from doing exactly that - taking her idea, and earning profit off of it - she's greedy. It just doesn't follow.

I'd completely agree with you and Gil for that matter if she had never supported his idea before and hadn't said that she thought it was a great idea. Hell, she even used it to help fact check her books when writing subsequent novels. That's where Rowling loses me. Its okay for her to use his encylopedia and praise it but when he wants to make a little money of all his hard work, she gets pissed. I'm sure it has nothing to do with her wanting to suddenly put out her own book on the same subject. She thought it was great till she saw just how much he would make off it...and then it became an issue for the billionaire.

Normally I would support the author's right but its not as if he's writing a new HP novel...he simply made a reference tool.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 09:19 AM
But it's still her intellectual property. Now, the better thing for her to do is to co-author it with him, but it's entirely her decision as to what or who makes money from her intellectual property.

Davian93
09-09-2008, 09:21 AM
But it's still her intellectual property. Now, the better thing for her to do is to co-author it with him, but it's entirely her decision as to what or who makes money from her intellectual property.

Its a reference tool...that's a different category. Hell she didn't have an issue when it was a webpage...what if he had had advertisements on that webpage...would that have bothered her?

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 09:23 AM
Probably. I know it would bother me.

Keep in mind, Dragonmount, WoTMania, and TL do not sell ad space (at least, last I checked.) If any of us did, I can guarentee Jordan would have had us shut down in a heartbeat.

Davian93
09-09-2008, 09:25 AM
If she had objected from the start and not used his webtool I would have no issues with her stance...its the fact that she used the service and now thinks it shouldn't be allowed. That's the hypocrisy (hey terez I spelled it right :)) I have the issue with.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 09:26 AM
Did she order the website shut down?

Davian93
09-09-2008, 09:28 AM
Did she order the website shut down?

I don't believe so...but she had no issues using all the guys hard work when she needed it. What wrong with him profiting on it? A bunch of guys did this with Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code crap and he had no issues with it "The truth behind the Da Vinci Code" etc etc. SHe's a billionaire...she hardly needs the money...its not like its fanfiction.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 09:41 AM
Um... Dav... Jordan used us, too.

And no, the Da Vinci Code crap was refuting his research, not taking characters from his book and profiting on them.

Let's list what's wrong with him profiting from something he didn't create.
1) Whether he assembled the data or not, it's not his original work.
2) He did not create Harry Potter.
3) He did not create Harry Potter.
4) He read a book (ok 7) and made some notes.
5) He did not create Harry Potter.

I don't really care what someone does with my intellectual property as long as I'm the only one profitting from it. However, this is the same thing as someone taking a bunch of fanfic and trying to publish it and profit from the world someone else created. It is still Rowlings' intellectual property!

Davian93
09-09-2008, 10:09 AM
A reference tool and fanfiction are two separate things...its not fair to compare them. And I doubt RJ sat in Starbucks and checked TL for a fact on his novels...he actually kept his own research files. If it was fanfiction I would agree with you but its a reference tool.

Ishara
09-09-2008, 10:12 AM
It's okay for her to use his encylopedia and praise it but when he wants to make a little money of all his hard work, she gets pissed.
But Dav, he did the "hard work" as a fan. Not at her request. If she appreciated the reference material and cited it in interviews or whatever, his benefit was her advertising, her endorsement. I'm betting he had advertisements that he was earning money off of anyways.

Again, who's to say that RJ didn't dip into Encyclopedia WoT now and then, he never said he did, but who's to say he didn't? That doesn't give them the right to publish something and make money off of it.

Why the animosity for someone who earned her money? Just because she's fabulously successful, it's okay to be contemptuous of her efforts to maintain her intellectual property?

ETA:

If she had objected from the start and not used his webtool I would have no issues with her stance...its the fact that she used the service and now thinks it shouldn't be allowed.

She used the WEBSITE Dav. It's totally different from publishing a book with the sole intention of making profit.

Also, the DaVinci Code example is specious. Dan Brown took theories that weren't his own and wove them into a fictitious novel - the characters and plot were his, but the theories weren't his original ideas, and he never refuted that. The other books were written about the theories, not the characters or plot line.

Crispin's Crispian
09-09-2008, 10:53 AM
Thank you, Ishara! I'm fairly certain everyone on here knows my stance on copyrights. Hell, I thought Metallica did a good thing in shutting down Napster.
I'm glad you guys both feel the same way I do. I've had arguments on Theoryland before where I thought I was the only one that respected copyright.

Although...a lot of people seem to respect copyright with books but not music. Or maybe it's just printed material not digital material.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 10:56 AM
I can hardly bitch about someone stealing my work if I steal others', Crispy.

Crispin's Crispian
09-09-2008, 10:58 AM
I can hardly bitch about someone stealing my work if I steal others', Crispy.
I hear you. Well, you can bitch all you want, but we could call B.S. I mean, what would Theoryland be without bitching?

:p

Gilshalos Sedai
09-09-2008, 11:00 AM
LOL, true, but I do try to avoid hypocrisy whenever possible.

Ishara
09-09-2008, 12:22 PM
I made the switch to paying for my music, either buying the cd or through itunes a couple of years back. I just couldn't justify it to myself any other way...bsides now I have a library of stuff that I actually like, as opposed to stuff that was cool for like a minute.

Cary Sedai
09-09-2008, 01:26 PM
I agree with Ishara. I dont' think Rowling has done anything wrong, nor is she being a bitch.

This person, as a FAN, made the website. She said she used it, and said good things about it. Could it be that she said those things, because she was so flattered that he put that much time into something she created, and to acknowledge that she gave him praise?

There is no way I believe for a second that he wants to publish this reference guide because he admires Rowling and Harry Potter. He already showed that with the website. A published book would just be for money. Which he has no right to.

Oh and just and example:

Terez has spent loads of time on gathering and organizing WoT information into a usable tool (just click her link). :D How would we feel if she wrote a "reference tool" and made tons of money off of it? I know I'd kick her butt!;)

the silent speaker
09-09-2008, 11:11 PM
If she had objected from the start and not used his webtool I would have no issues with her stance
The website and the book are two different animals. The website had much more in the way of essays and commentary.

Birgitte
09-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Just brought this to mind...

http://www.applegeeks.com/lite/strips/aglite345.jpg

The Immortal One
09-14-2008, 09:43 AM
The website and the book are two different animals.
*agreement*

Making a website for people to look things up is one thing; but actually trying to sell it is another.

Ozymandias
09-14-2008, 09:40 PM
I think the problem is that its such a blatantly hypocritical move by Rowling that it makes it hard to stomach. Yeah, legally she's in the right and this guy has no right to profit off her work.

Personally my problem with the whole situation is its a guy who's done a lot of hard work trying to reap a little reward from that work. Rowling admitted that the site helped her. Which means it certainly helped other fans. Which means its certainly helped drive interest in her books.

If Rowling were a struggling author, I'd be completely in agreement with her. But she's one of the wealthiest women in the world, and doesn't need another cent to keep her and her descendants for the next 100 years living a life of complete luxury. Why is she quibbling over what amounts to pennies, for her? I understand there is principle at stake, but this isn't like Napster, where a bunch of teenagers are literally stealing profits out from under artists' noses: this is a guy with a totally original piece of material that HE created trying to publish. Yes, it involves her characters, but its ridiculous to equate this to illegal file sharing. Its something Rowling openly acknowledged as useful and good that somehow becomes evil when tried to be used for profit. Not taking profit from Rowling as Napster does, mind you, but just rewarding the guy for his work.

I mean, I think we've all read that Orson Scott Card rant where he basically explains how Harry Potter is a mimicry of Enders Game, and technically, I buy it. Why shouldn't we be trying to nail Rowling for creative theft?

It just seems hypocritical and jealous of her to do this. This is the kind of stifling application of copyright law which leads to the death of creativity. It costs her nothing to let this thing get published. In fact, it might spur further sales of her own books. At the very least its good press for her and for Harry Potter. Where is the harm in it?

tworiverswoman
09-14-2008, 11:46 PM
I mean, I think we've all read that Orson Scott Card rant where he basically explains how Harry Potter is a mimicry of Enders Game, and technically, I buy it. I haven't read that, but I don't agree. I've read Ender's Game many times, and liked it quite a bit, but I find any similarity in the idea of the two stories totally superficial. One thin thread of similarity: boy with special abilities has his destiny manipulated by someone in charge. That's an INCREDIBLY slim basis for "she stole my idea!"

As far as this guy wanting to sell his encyclopedia of Harry Potter facts, no. Just, no. Yes, he did a nice bit of scholarly work. I admire his efforts, but they were a labor of love, and the fact that Rowling praised them at some point gave him delusions of ownership.

Dav and Ozy -- you two are obviously people who think there's something wrong with "rich people." Rowling was fabulously lucky as an author -- not many authors strike the mother lode like she did. She's not beholden to you in the slightest to act the way you think she should. She EARNED her money, and has every right in the world to maintain complete ownership of her work.

I admit I find myself very, very curious how much music is on your computers that you paid for, vs. downloaded for free.

Ozymandias
09-15-2008, 02:56 AM
I haven't read that, but I don't agree. I've read Ender's Game many times, and liked it quite a bit, but I find any similarity in the idea of the two stories totally superficial. One thin thread of similarity: boy with special abilities has his destiny manipulated by someone in charge. That's an INCREDIBLY slim basis for "she stole my idea!"

As far as this guy wanting to sell his encyclopedia of Harry Potter facts, no. Just, no. Yes, he did a nice bit of scholarly work. I admire his efforts, but they were a labor of love, and the fact that Rowling praised them at some point gave him delusions of ownership.

I think everyone agrees he has no ownership. Legally, he's clearly not in an enviable position. That doesn't make what JK Rowling is doing right.

Dav and Ozy -- you two are obviously people who think there's something wrong with "rich people." Rowling was fabulously lucky as an author -- not many authors strike the mother lode like she did. She's not beholden to you in the slightest to act the way you think she should. She EARNED her money, and has every right in the world to maintain complete ownership of her work.

I admit I find myself very, very curious how much music is on your computers that you paid for, vs. downloaded for free.

Not one song. I do not download music or anything else illegally. I have a great respect for copyright laws, but think they are much too zealously over-applied. Every piece of music on my computer is from iTunes, or uploaded from a CD.

And yes, we realize she has complete ownership of her work. There is a definite difference sometimes between what is legal and what is right. In this case, I believe JK Rowling has a legal right to pursue this action, but that doesn't mean its the RIGHT path. She's not beholden to me, you, or the guy who compiled the encyclopedia which helped her. But as an author who embodies the rags to riches story, you might expect her to have a little compassion for a guy trying to start his career, even if it is on the back of her work. Its not like he stole the encyclopedia from her study and published it; he put in the time, effort, and interest in creating it. Do you think Rowling has the right to take it, verbatim, and publish it as her own?

The point being that yes, she's legally correct, its her brainchild he's piggybacking on, but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to condemn her a little for deciding that he doesn't have a right to make a buck. As I said, of all people, you'd think she'd have a measure of sympathy for a new writer, or even compiler, especially when not only does what he's doing not impact her in ANY way, but probably will HELP her. If someone rapes my wife and I track him down 2 months later and kill him, I'm probably legally guilty of some sort of crime, but that doesn't mean I wasn't justified in doing it. She may legally be right to prosecute him, but that doesn't make it morally right.

Davian93
09-15-2008, 07:54 AM
Dav and Ozy -- you two are obviously people who think there's something wrong with "rich people." Rowling was fabulously lucky as an author -- not many authors strike the mother lode like she did. She's not beholden to you in the slightest to act the way you think she should. She EARNED her money, and has every right in the world to maintain complete ownership of her work.

I admit I find myself very, very curious how much music is on your computers that you paid for, vs. downloaded for free.

No my problem is with hypocrisy.

On the music...LOL. I dont have a single piece of downloaded music or movies etc on my computer and I never have. I also don't own an MP3 player or Ipod etc.

I don't want her money at all, she can keep it. Just don't bend this guy over for basically printing out his website for a bit of profit. A website that you used for years. He should have charged her usage fees for the website then.

Ishara
09-15-2008, 11:39 AM
Sorry, but why is it hypocritical? By acknowledging the website as useful, she was simply stating a fact. By prventing him from making money off of a printed publication of said website, she's not saying the material's not useful. She's saying he can't make money off of her idea. Two very different things.

If she was still a struggling author would this as big an issue for you?

tworiverswoman
09-15-2008, 02:44 PM
Do you think Rowling has the right to take it, verbatim, and publish it as her own? Where the hell did THIS come from?

I understand that you are differentiating between her legal right and what you perceive as "the right thing" -- I just happen to disagree with you both. I note that of the commenters on this thread, the two of you stand pretty much alone.

You keep claiming it's based on her hypocrisy, but every other statement you make is something like, "She's so rich, she doesn't need the money, let the little guy have a break, she's so MEEEEEEEEAN!" She is not in any way being a hypocrite. Praising the website, as a FAN EFFORT that she found well constructed and useful, does not make her two-faced at all.

If she ever produces and sells "Hogwarts: A History" will you claim that she "stole" his encyclopedia idea?

As to the music question, I'm glad you aren't hypocrites about the theft of copyrighted material...

Cary Sedai
09-15-2008, 03:13 PM
Oz,

Is piggy-backing on someone else's work morally right? You seem to be implying that it is.

You also seem to be implying that, if you've worked and made your money through your own efforts, that you should in turn allow others to piggy-back off of you.

Even though they didn't come up with thier own idea, and put in that same sort of effort as you, you should feel sorry for them and let them make money off of you.

I know the guy did a lot of work, but it was his choice to do so. It is a fan site. Kudos for him. However, why should he be allowed, to make money off of Rowling?

And he would be making money off of her. If she didn't write Harry Potter, if she didn't make a killing off Harry Potter, then this guy wouldn't even be trying to publish this book.

Also how do you know this refrence book wouldn't hurt Rowling? It very well could, or couldn't. There is no way to know for certain.

I'm definitely saying I think that it is wrong (you can say morally if you want) to make money off of someone else. To me, it's one of the lowest things yo can do. It shows no respect, for the person or yourself.

Sinistrum
09-15-2008, 03:52 PM
One thing that I think is missing from this debate is the fact that if this fansite admin were to be allowed to publish this book, he in turn, would be given a copyright for it. At least under American law, being the first to fix an idea in a tangible medium is all that is required to gain a copyright and given that IP law in this country stems from the British Common law, I would imagine it would be similiar in the UK. You don't have to register with any government agency or get on a list, or have your copyright approved by a bureaucrat. In the case of a book, you just have to write it down. Allowing this book to be published would create a situation in which two authors would have copyrights, and thus creative control, over the exact same material. It would completely defeat the supremacy of first in time aspect Rowling's copyright, and it's impact would not just stop with her. It would be setting a precedent that could be used to justify the any first in time violation of an otherwise valid copyright law and thus lead to the destruction of the entire system of copyrights.

I know what the response will be, and that is how likely is that to really happen? But what you must understand about law is that, fundamentally, it is completely based upon case precedent. And once case precedent is created, it can rise with great alacrity to prominence in the greater body of law, and can be extremely difficult to tear down once built up. There is a reason why cases such as Plessey v. Ferguson and Dredd Scott are so universally abhorred in the legal community. They created case precedent that was used to justify to of the most abhorrent legalities in U.S. history (slavery and Jim Crow). The lesson learned from them is sometimes, all it takes is just one case to legitimize decades of injustice.

Brita
09-15-2008, 03:57 PM
Well there you go- the expert has spoken. The principle itself is enough to justify Rowling's actions.

Cary Sedai
09-15-2008, 04:32 PM
Well there you go- the expert has spoken. The principle itself is enough to justify Rowling's actions.

You just gave Sini, expert status! What were you thinking!? :p

Brita
09-15-2008, 09:44 PM
You just gave Sini, expert status! What were you thinking!? :p

Ummm...I didn't post anything to incriminate myself- no direct quotes or names...I'll deny it all and plead the fifth.