CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Harry Potter Superfan Is A Big Fucking Crybaby
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Harry Potter Superfan Is A Big Fucking Crybaby - Page 2

post #51 of 65
4/17/08 at 10:47am
I don't know about that, she has always been pretty forthright about the value of her own work, for example ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ts/4732385.stm

Still at least she is admitting the Potter series are fantasy novels now.
Reply
post #52 of 65
4/17/08 at 10:52am
But the weird thing is that she is basing a lot of her argument on quality. I guess her team believes they can win by saying the poor quality of the lexicon "dilutes" the value of the Potter books, which is a false argument in my view.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the lexicon is, what matters is that it is not violating copyright. Ironically, her quality argument works against her, because how can she claim such an inferior work can compete with her future desires to build her own Harry Potter reference guide?

She's just wasting time, she very well knows that any reference book from her will sell more and sell well ... specially when she can make up new content for it.
Reply
post #53 of 65
4/17/08 at 10:57am
Exactly, it the whole thing reeks of an "I was going to do that!" temper tantrum.

They guy, however lame he may be is not breaking the law, he is simply following in the footsteps of every other fan who has made and unofficial guide over the years.
Reply
post #54 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Plus, she's super rich, her argument that this is a threat to her future work is laughable.
Yeah, but economical status of the "victim"* shouldn't influence enforcement/interpretation of a law.



* I don't have enough facts about the case or the materials in question to know for sure if there is infringement.
Reply
post #55 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:12pm
It is not, but her argument that this will prevent her from doing her own reference book is not credible, as well as irrelevant.

I had a earlier link with a more law oriented opinion of the case you might want to read, as for the "evidence" you can look at the lexicon. I get bored reading all those references but it doesn't seem like there's chapters of books embedded in there, nor is this really fanfict.
Reply
post #56 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post

I had a earlier link with a more law oriented opinion of the case you might want to read...

- humbly raises hand - Uhm, would you mind posting it?
Reply
post #57 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:25pm
It's in the first page people! :-)

"J.K. Rowling's Dark Mark - Why she should lose her copyright lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon."
http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/
Reply
post #58 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:35pm
It was my impression that the book wasn't so much original analysis and discussion but a list of characters using large chunks of Rowling's text as descriptions. It'd be like me doing a Lord of the Rings character guide and under my entry for "Balrog" simply quoting the text of the fight in Moria.
Reply
post #59 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:38pm
Most of the "definitions" seem to be made by the people working on the Lexicon, as a matter of fact Rowlin's case on the quality of the work works against her in this matter because she says the definitions are not written well and are not accurate enough. Read the articles on this.
Reply
post #60 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:39pm
If we're really going to get deep here people - Rowling's own work is hardly the textbook definition of original fiction.
Reply
post #61 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
It was my impression that the book wasn't so much original analysis and discussion but a list of characters using large chunks of Rowling's text as descriptions. It'd be like me doing a Lord of the Rings character guide and under my entry for "Balrog" simply quoting the text of the fight in Moria.
As Devin mentioned, it all comes down to how much of it is direct quotation and how much is paraphrasing and analysis.

The fact that this guy includes ideas and characters that Rowling invented means absolutely nothing. The legality of every critical text based on an existing work would be placed in jeopardy if Vander Ark were found guilty on those grounds. If someone wants to write an analysis of Updike's Rabbit books, he shouldn't have to worry about being sued for using Updike's characters or revealing the plots of his books, even if Updike himself has plans to release an alphabetical compendium of his own stuff.
Reply
post #62 of 65
4/17/08 at 3:55pm
I agree, and there have been plenty of other fan guides that have done just that -- I have a dog-eared, beat-up copy of Robert Foster's Guide to Middle-earth that reveals the entire plot of The Hobbit and LOTR, but it also doesn't quote the books at all. Then again, how can a scholarly analytical examination of work not use quotes to support its arguments?

And if this guy and Rowling both put out lexicons, does Rowling really think the one without her name on it is going to win out? And if it's quality she's complaining about, why didn't she do anything about the umpteen awful "What's Going to Happen in Harry Potter 7?" books that were out for a year before Deathly Hallows hit?
Reply
post #63 of 65
4/17/08 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I agree, and there have been plenty of other fan guides that have done just that -- I have a dog-eared, beat-up copy of Robert Foster's Guide to Middle-earth that reveals the entire plot of The Hobbit and LOTR, but it also doesn't quote the books at all. Then again, how can a scholarly analytical examination of work not use quotes to support its arguments?
Well, they all do (or they probably should). But the quotes need to be cited, and I'm pretty sure there are limits on just how much of the content can be direct quotation.

Quote:
And if this guy and Rowling both put out lexicons, does Rowling really think the one without her name on it is going to win out? And if it's quality she's complaining about, why didn't she do anything about the umpteen awful "What's Going to Happen in Harry Potter 7?" books that were out for a year before Deathly Hallows hit?
I think she's really just annoyed here because the guy basically put out a crappy version of something that she plans on doing well. And she should be annoyed. But I don't think she should legally be allowed to stop it (unless he quotes excessively and doesn't cite or something).
Reply
post #64 of 65
4/17/08 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
It is not, but her argument that this will prevent her from doing her own reference book is not credible, as well as irrelevant.
Well if this hearing/trial/circumstance leaves her as emotionally distraught as it appears to be, she may never bring herself to start it. Therefore...

Maybe she can seek punitive damages.
Reply
post #65 of 65
4/17/08 at 5:22pm
A civil suit but it almost seems like that is what they're arguing, which is why I brought up the fact that she is super rich, which would also undermine that argument.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Harry Potter Superfan Is A Big Fucking Crybaby