roxy Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Just read that article and yep it's typical, poor dude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyT Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Just read that article and yep it's typical, poor dude! It's also typical of the Sydney Daily Telegraph - an appalling tabloid rag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
collector-man Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Just read that article and yep it's typical, poor dude! It's also typical of the Sydney Daily Telegraph - an appalling tabloid rag. Sorry to continue this OT subject but it seems the media (AND gen public) are obsessed with who young celebs are dating - they're alway sinterested in if they have a gf/bf or not. I guess its cos we're interested in their loss of "innocence" and journey into adulthood?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PorcelainPerfect Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 (edited) omg how pathetic. like she can't afford to let him take in a bit of money. she used to be all about her fans, she has really lost sight of what's important. it's a shame really. Edited April 24, 2008 by PorcelainPerfect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Powers Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 She's only mad coz she didn't think of the idea first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Showmasters Admin showmasters Posted April 24, 2008 Showmasters Admin Share Posted April 24, 2008 She did! Ever since the release of the last HP book she's been saying she was going to write a dictionary. So not only has this guy stolen her work he also stole her idea! And what kind of fan would do this to the person they're supposed to admire. This person isn't a fan at all, just a rip off merchant trying to make a quick buck from real fans who would be buying his book. Some people need a serious reality check. Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't mean it's acceptable to steal from them. Andrea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted April 28, 2008 Author Share Posted April 28, 2008 (edited) are you denying she's a money grabbing b*tch? because in all fairness, stealing ideas or otherwise, i don't think that can be argued. defend her to the hills if you have to... let's be honest you've lined her pockets so far... but don't pretend she isn't in it for the money. I love this thread dearly Edited April 28, 2008 by KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 are you denying she's a money grabbing b*tch? defend her to the hills if you have to... let's be honest you've lined her pockets so far... but don't pretend she isn't in it for the money. Who dares defy the almighty being known as SM?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowsparkle Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 are you denying she's a money grabbing b*tch? because in all fairness, stealing ideas or otherwise, i don't think that can be argued. defend her to the hills if you have to... let's be honest you've lined her pockets so far... but don't pretend she isn't in it for the money. I love this thread dearly Wow! Maybe I'm too soft but you seem to be really aggressive about this!!! No, really - you seem to have a bug up your ass big time over it! Why is she a moneygrabbing b*tch? Because she got off her btm, worked hard and earned herself a mint and now doesn't want to hand it over to all comers? Would you? Would you spend 15 years of your life creating something like the Harry Potter series and then give away the copyright? Which, as has been pointed out, is basically what she'll be doing if she lets this guy publish his book. As for the money bit - is it certain that she'll be claiming financial recompense for all this? If so, as someone else pointed out when I mentioned I didn't think this was fair, it would act as a deterrent to others. If not, then she's just making a firm point about theft, she's sticking up for herself. Or maybe you think she's being mean not to hand over her life's work to a fan so he can earn money... I'm an artist and some time ago, I gave an art dealer a disc with some of my digital work on it because he said he wanted to see it. I never got the disc back and I don't know where he is now. He seemed like a good guy and he probably is - he probably doesn't even remember he has it - but I still sometimes sweat when I think about how I'd feel if I saw some of my images in a shop somewhere and credited to someone else. It's not too different to this whole JKR thing. Anyone who's worked hard to create something is territorial about it and within their rights to defend it whether there's money involved or not. Try creating something yourself that's a labour of love (and time, energy and maybe money) and see how you feel about handing it over to someone else! I'm suddenly terribly conscious of the fact that now I sound like the one with a bug up her ass As a final note, there's an interesting article on this subject in May's SFX mag, if anyone wants to read it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noddy Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 (edited) Thats a new oxymoron - Intresting article / SFX !!!! (I say that as long time subscriber)) Edited April 28, 2008 by Noddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyT Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 are you denying she's a money grabbing b*tch? because in all fairness, stealing ideas or otherwise, i don't think that can be argued. ... but don't pretend she isn't in it for the money. I still don't think you've made a reasonable case for "money-grabbing" - given sworn testimony on oath that the case against the website was not about money (and I ask again, have you done your research and found out the monetary amount she's suing for in that case?), and that the only amount named in the Indian case was because Indian law requires an amount to be specified (which it was also suggested would go to charity). It looks far more like a case of wanting creative control and copyright protection of one's own creations, than money-grabbing. I don't believe that your accusation stands up. Anyway, as for only being in it for the money, I presume that after you've paid your food and shelter costs you give away every spare penny you have to charity (and are presumably typing on a free-access terminal at your local library)? Or do you like to have a bit of cash yourself for the luxuries in life, in which case you too are presumably "in it for the money"? Which I would guess makes you hypocritical (as well as jealous for not being as good at the money-generating thing as Rowling ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jog Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 So it's allowed on a website but he isn't allowed to publish a book? And she said "She denied the case was about money and accused Mr Vander Ark of "an act of betrayal" in using her fiction as the basis for his guide." WTF is he going to make a guide on? His house, oh because that would sell. Anyway, as for only being in it for the money, I presume that after you've paid your food and shelter costs you give away every spare penny you have to charity (and are presumably typing on a free-access terminal at your local library)? Or do you like to have a bit of cash yourself for the luxuries in life, in which case you too are presumably "in it for the money"? Which I would guess makes you hypocritical (as well as jealous for not being as good at the money-generating thing as Rowling ) That makes no sense at all, KB isn't a multi-millionaire that can already afford just about anything he wants in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyT Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 So it's allowed on a website but he isn't allowed to publish a book? Further evidence of Rowling's reasonableness. Whilst it was just a website, nobody was making any money off it, so no great harm. In strict copyright protection terms, it was actionable, but the pragmatic approach was to let it go. Not only would you run up a load of legal bills (because if if she won, the pre-publishing deal Mr Vander Ark wouldn't have been able to meet any court order to pay them), and you then have to consider how many other non-profit websites you need to take action against. However, once Mr Vander Ark and his publishers set themselves up to make a shedload of cash, then obviously the situation changed markedly. Both the website and the book, apparently, have precious little original work and commentary, and was hugely about just reproducing chunks of Rowling's work. Making a profit out of flogging that is taking the p*ss. If somebody started cataloguing my work online, I'd probably feel slightly flattered, and depending on how useful it was, I might use it myself occasionally. But if that somebody started selling chunks of my work, to an extent in competition with me, and using my original work as the basis for their proposition, and potentially affecting my income, I'd be livid. And she said "She denied the case was about money and accused Mr Vander Ark of "an act of betrayal" in using her fiction as the basis for his guide." WTF is he going to make a guide on? His house, oh because that would sell. He can write a guide about Harry Potter, so long as it contains enough original comment and non-Rowling material that the amount of Rowling material included is allowable under the "fair use" provisions inherent in copyright law. If he wants to try and flog a book which is composed primarily of Rowling's work, then he's going to get slapped down by the law,and quite rightly so. Whilst we're at it, copyright protection aside, how come nobody is calling Vander Ark "money-grabbing?" After all, his book would impact on Rowling's planned guide, the proceeds of which are due to go to charity. So Vander Ark's book would be directly reducing the amount available to charities, but nobody seems to find that at all out of order. Anyway, as for only being in it for the money, I presume that after you've paid your food and shelter costs you give away every spare penny you have to charity (and are presumably typing on a free-access terminal at your local library)? Or do you like to have a bit of cash yourself for the luxuries in life, in which case you too are presumably "in it for the money"? Which I would guess makes you hypocritical (as well as jealous for not being as good at the money-generating thing as Rowling ) That makes no sense at all, KB isn't a multi-millionaire that can already afford just about anything he wants in the world. I was making the point that people have different views of what is "money-grabbing". Assuming KB has money spare after paying for food and shelter, some people might think that keeping that spare money was "money-grabbing" - at least compared to Rowling who is on oath as not being after any money at all from this court case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted May 6, 2008 Author Share Posted May 6, 2008 are you denying she's a money grabbing b*tch? because in all fairness, stealing ideas or otherwise, i don't think that can be argued. ... but don't pretend she isn't in it for the money. I still don't think you've made a reasonable case for "money-grabbing" - given sworn testimony on oath that the case against the website was not about money (and I ask again, have you done your research and found out the monetary amount she's suing for in that case?), and that the only amount named in the Indian case was because Indian law requires an amount to be specified (which it was also suggested would go to charity). It looks far more like a case of wanting creative control and copyright protection of one's own creations, than money-grabbing. I don't believe that your accusation stands up. Anyway, as for only being in it for the money, I presume that after you've paid your food and shelter costs you give away every spare penny you have to charity (and are presumably typing on a free-access terminal at your local library)? Or do you like to have a bit of cash yourself for the luxuries in life, in which case you too are presumably "in it for the money"? Which I would guess makes you hypocritical (as well as jealous for not being as good at the money-generating thing as Rowling ) i appreciate you backing me up Jog but seriously this guy has too much time on his hands (i'm assuming he is typing with one hand) saying something under oath doesn't mean sh*t these days... apparently putting your hand on a book doesn't cause you to tell the truth uncontrollably also... you're a tw*t, you really are. You must have been looking forward to a reply just so you could spend your lonely night gathering information nobody wants to hear. I'm doing this for your own good. I started this thread because i was bored at the time and her twattish actions had annoyed me. Now your twattish actions are annoying me. Give it up... nobody cares. They really don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts