J. K. Rowling Wins $6,750 In Infringement Case 521
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down. After a trial in Manhattan in Warner Bros. v. RDR Books, she won, getting the judge to agree with her (and her friends at Warner Bros. Entertainment) that the 'Lexicon' did not qualify for fair use protection. In a 68-page decision (PDF) the judge concluded that the Lexicon did a little too much 'verbatim copying,' competed with Ms. Rowling's planned encyclopedia, and might compete with her exploitation of songs and poems from the Harry Potter books, although she never made any such claim in presenting her evidence. The judge awarded her $6,750 and granted her an injunction that would prevent the 'Lexicon' from seeing the light of day." Groklaw has an exhaustive discussion of the judgement.
Poor Harry... (Score:4, Funny)
"Please, Ms. Rowling, I'm so tired and bleeding from both ends..."
"Is J.K. gonna have to choke a bitch? Get me my money!"
Just like the books... (Score:5, Funny)
Avada Kedavra!
The odd part is (Score:2, Funny)
Thanks, NewYorkCountryLawyer! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thanks, NewYorkCountryLawyer! (Score:5, Funny)
I noticed you accidently wrote at least one sentence that doesn't totally drip with contempt for this ruling.
Dammit. Sorry about that. I don't know how I let that slip through.
Re:Thanks, NewYorkCountryLawyer! (Score:3, Funny)
I wish I could mod myself -1 Complainy, but I gotta agree here...this is a deeply biased and agendized summary. Mod the summary -1 Disappointed. :(
Yes but I did provide you with the actual 68-page decision, so that you could decide for yourself that my post was "biased" and "agendized". Who, other than Groklaw [groklaw.net], gives you that kind of service? And with a :).
Re:Before the outrage starts... (Score:4, Funny)
Because she's got lots of money and that's not fair? Somebody better call a waaaaghmbulance for NewYorkCountryLawyer!
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:1, Funny)
A more pressing question is, why is there such a demand for her infantile shit? A friend once asked me to read Harry Potter to her and I found that it is without a doubt the most sophomoric and overrated shiterature I'd ever laid my eyes on. Come to think of it, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis also suck-ass overrated authors.
Harry Potter fanbois should pick up some Dostoevsky -- I promise that will make their nuts drop and put hair on their chests! Why spend life daydreaming in fairyland when real life is so much more interesting?
Re:I wonder.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:5, Funny)
"Why is it wrong for a Slashdot post to express an opinion?"
Because of the borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile. opinion must be shared by all, or not exist. there can be no bias, except that of the slashdrone. there must be no argument on what is right, for the slashdrones can not argue.
Re:Who here really cares about this? (Score:2, Funny)
"Makes me want to burn my dork card."
Just don't burn your dork - I've heard that REALLY hurts.
Unless you're into that sort of thing.
Re:Just like the books... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hold your horses! (Score:3, Funny)
"The crux of your defense appears to be that a website previously existed that Rowling was happy with. Yet one has to be clear on one aspect here: There is a large gulf between publishing large pieces of someone's work for a no-cost reference and publishing someone else's work for profit."
And if that difference isn't recognized you can be certain that many more fan sites will start getting nastygrams.
It seems to me as if the author in this case was being very open to fan sites but not so much to people trying to make money off of plagiarism. Hack I don't even like Harry Potter but in this case it all seems reasonable.
As for the the story description. A miss leading inflammatory story description on Slashdot? Never happens.
hrm, biased much? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm reading this blurb like this, "Judges, in a remarkably stupid an uninformed decision, said that JK Rowlings can be a greedy bitch." Wow.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:3, Funny)
"not until Star Trek: TNG was something of that scale attempted (languages created, cultures defined, etc...) "
Obviously, you have never heard of Scientology.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:3, Funny)
Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke! You vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert!
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:3, Funny)
"Why is it wrong for a Slashdot post to express an opinion?"
Because of the borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile. opinion must be shared by all, or not exist. there can be no bias, except that of the slashdrone. there must be no argument on what is right, for the slashdrones can not argue.
Now you tell me.
Re:simple (Score:5, Funny)
Correct, they're baby goats.
Re:What does her wealth have to do with it? (Score:3, Funny)
is a form of estoppel.
Godwins Law is invoked.
Hitlers secret police have nothing to do with the conversation.
Re:Trolls can now post news on \., film at 11 (Score:3, Funny)
\.
I'm sure you were making an excellent point. Unfortunately your geek card is being revoked due incorrect usage of the backslash, thus stripping any meaning of your comment.
/ : this is a slash, aka forward slash, or "that weird diagonal line you use on the interwebs"
\ : this is a backslash, aka "the other one you don't use... do you? what's a share? wait wait? What's it called again?"
Have a nice day,
the geek card policy enforcement internet police.
Re:Poor Harry... (Score:4, Funny)
This variation, 1a perhaps, is "I haven't read [book or article], but I nonetheless know everything about it and they're idiots."