JK Rowling Sucks

How can you own the word "olympics" ? Unless you are Greek and 2000 yrs old, then it aint yours.

She sucketh verily.

You don't own the phrase "DannyinJapan", so imagine if 19 of us starting using that screenname along with your avatar. Would you sucketh verily for being p*ssed? Not at all.

Same thing with Rawlings, except there are 3 billion dollars attached to her intellectual property (books, movies, you name it), and - unlike BF screennames - the law actually protects what she created. As it should. :thumbup:

- cheers
DannyinJapan (joking)
 
You'd think Rowling or her kennel full of lawyers could cut them some slack, its not like they are using to to turn a profit or anything. That being said it isn't a small town or a small float. Metro Kolkata has almost 15million people and the float cost 30,000. Still like they said in the article White Star isn't sueing them for modeling the Titanic.

I hope some association of clay turners sue Rowling for the use of the term Potter.

The issue is with copyright law, not with Rowling. She has to enforce her rights in every case or risk it passing into the public domain.
 
I'm not going to get into my whole intelectual property bit, it would take to long. Lets just say that I think these laws need some serious reworking.
 
dannyinjapan is just upset because it was another series of films ruined by parkour....
harry-potter-and-the-goblet-of-fire-6.jpg
 
If I could give you reps for that I'd do it. Harry is a magician. He doesnt have time to play jumpy jumpy.

I still agree with Danny though. Rowling sucks and stole most of her stuff. Not cool.

Keno
 
The issue is with copyright law, not with Rowling. She has to enforce her rights in every case or risk it passing into the public domain.

The logic, and even the facts are falling on deaf ears and closed minds bro.:( :rolleyes:
 
I hear ya, Andy. However, HP and JK tend to be polarizing for whatever reason. There is no doubt in my mind that JK's and/or WB's team of lawyers are at the heart of the matter. Thank you, to all that set the record straight on the article.

I fully intend to read the HP series over my long slow season at work. Several thousand pages of well written fantasy sounds like a good way to pass the time until spring. However, I do feel that JK is indeed a plagiarist. There are way too many similarities between her characters, situations, and ideas from previously written works for her to have not borrowed some things. That said, who doesn't lift directly from other sources? Supposedly, Sam Raimi lifted the idea of his cult classic "Evil Dead" directly from an obscure Italian zombie movie (the name escapes me right now). "Robocop" is a cybernetic (and brutal) tale of Christ. Even the Old Testament story of Moses' basket floating down stream to be plucked from the river by nobility is supposedly based on an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic carving.

What JK has done is use whatever material she had, borrowed or created from her own mind, and perfected it into a story that is engaging and fun to read for kids and adults alike. My main problem with her regarding this story was that from the article it seemed like she herself was going after the float. That didn't sit well with me. It was irresponsible of me to pass judgment on JK off of one article, even if I believe that some of her sources are uncredited. Bottom line: She's gotten kids to read. That's a good thing. The principles an legalities of her work can be hammered out over time, but kids with their nose in a book instead of pressed up against the TV is never a bad thing.
 
Jake said:
[...]but kids with their nose in a book instead of pressed up against the TV is never a bad thing.

Also true. But it can cause bad vision if they read in bad light conditions. :D

Keno
 
I still like the books. I also really like jim dale's spoken rendition of them, especially of nymphadora tonks and voldamort. tonks had a crazy thick accent, one of those super regional specific english accents that contrasts every other english accent present, and voldamort actually sounded snake like.

the beyond the veil portion of book 5 is still one of my favorite literary images ever. but I saw it as an actual velvet curtain, rather then the smoke crap shown in the movies.

lol... I like harry potter.
 
Having said that, I can't help but expect that she'd sue if "The Secret of platform 13", The Troll, Rah and the Muggles, the Worst Witch, Larry Potter, etc --- which were all published before Harry Potter --- were published for the first time today.

Touché.

Please, next you'll be telling me George Lucas ripped off a whole bunch of contemporary filmmakers and authors with Star Wars and then jealously defended his own work.

*coughHiddenFortresscoughSanshiroSugatacough* :D
 
Real originality is tough; it's hard to come up with something no-one ever thought of before. Can't fault JKR for borrowing ideas, but she didn't even try to be subtle about it. Would it have been so hard to (say) call the candy 'Marzipan Maggots'?
 
The Harry Potter beheamoth (J.K., Warner Bros, et al) need to exercise some diligence in protecting the intellectual property, lest others grossly misuse the Harry Potter brand. Selling Potter banners to corporate sponsors (as I understand it in this case) would be a no-no, but worse would be things like H.P. pornography. If they don't pursue the borderline cases, then it opens the door to really aggregious things.

In some ways, the situation is miserable because it turns into a faceless legal battle, and the only winners are the lawyers collecting the fees.

I think Rowling et al. have been pretty lenient with fan fiction and derivitive works, even in cases where the parties are making a bit of money (band "Harry and the Potters") but I don't really know if any legal actions have been taken in this area.

Potter is derivitive, and will probably inspire a whole slew of similar (but not the same) works down the road. Look at traditional myths and fables. How many versions of King Arthur are there? How many works that take Arthurian plots and put them in new settings?

YMMV
 
its also worth noting in this discussion that we often times see these kinds of trademark/style infringements here in the knife community. the best example I can think of was the razel design copy/infringement that cause quite a hubbubub. the razel design is unique as a combination of elements - elements that are gathered from other designs. because the basic razel design is a chisel ground blade, the handle is really the only thing that could be considered unique, and even then many examples of past knives could be gathered up and paraded as being either identical, or "obvious predecessors".

that particular knife was not copied maliciously, it was done so in innocence, and was not meant to be a long term money maker of any kind.


it is reasonable for those creators whose stories and plot devices were used by j.k. rowling to be unhappy, and even to seek legal retribution where it is possible;

but I feel that to claim that j.k. rowling does not also have the reasonable right to do the same to others regarding her representation is slightly hypocritical.

the only difference between her story, and the ones that she supposedly stole from is the distance between it and previous incarnations. if a previous incarnation takes its elements from a 300 year old story its okay, but to take from a 50 year old story is not. depriving from the dead is generally considerably more well looked upon then depriving from the living, and understandably so. (at least, where intellectual property is concerned). however, the basic act of intellectual property manipulation is the same.
 
As far as I know, the Graham Razel has always been a v-grind. Even the forward edge is a v-grind. I have one of the early Razels and it is not a chisel.

sorry about that, I was refering to the visual aspect of the design geometry, more then the main grind geometry. thank you for the correction though :thumbup:
 
Back
Top