Gothamist: Judge Rules Against Harry Potter Lexicon

NannyState

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:46:22 -0500

Just because she's right doesn't mean we have to like that mad old slag or her shite prose.

zodak

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:35:49 -0500

a lot of haters here, or people who don't understand copyright. as someone who watched order of the phoenix this weekend (yeah, i own it), i have to tell you that AHT is right & most of you muggles are wrong. even steven vander ark knew it was wrong & had the publisher put into his contract that they would defend any lawsuits. i read it in the daily prophet you mugblood!

ianmac47

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:42:01 -0500

This case is not about JK Rowling or nerds. Its about traditional limits on copyrights being over turned by multinational corporations. A previous comment drew a comparison to Tolkien; the difference between Tolkien's era and the Rowling suit is its unlikely Tolkien's suit against a similar project would have ever seen the inside of a courtroom. It probably would have been dismissed before even reaching that point. This is simply a win for large corporations. The whole intent of copyright is to encourage the production of intellectual material, not suppress it. Copyright was to create a financial incentive for the creation of new works. Yet, all this ruling has done is allowed Rowling to continue to profit from existing creations, and allow her children and eventual grandchildren to profit without ever writing another book. That is not how copyright is suppose to work.

stackmaster

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:21:54 -0500

Nicely said, emilydickinson. Rowling's a pill.

AHT

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:55:51 -0500

He didn't lose for writing a reference book. He lost for trying to publish a reference book that relied too heavily on the source material. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Steven

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:59:33 -0500

NannyState

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:48:54 -0500

They are not "words" but spells, because she is a witch.

Snoopy

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:37:13 -0500

How does Webster's unabridged dictionary get away with listing new words?

arf arf arf

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:26:49 -0500

contro is that Mario banging Goldilocks? Wtf!

MissMeowy

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:55:47 -0500

Bitch? Hardly. Copyright infringement = srs bzns.

emilydickinson

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:48:57 -0500

I am huge Harry Potter fan, and now I have to say: JK Rowling I hope a Death Eater disembowels your children. This is absurd. What this gent has compiled is an academic work, and it's no different than an Encyclopedia for Shakespeare,Jane Austen or a reading guide for 'Ulysses'. Beyond that, it's gross. JK Rowling has more money than her, her children and grandchildren can ever spend, yet she is putting someone through the ringer for admiring her writing enough to research and catalogue it. That's greed. Artists are supposed to be a bit of a different species.

contro

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:21:22 -0500

wow what a bitch.

blablanyc

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:18:44 -0500

Wow. She invented gibberish. Tolkien did it too. And he didn't bother suing nerds. Let's take a look at words created by a true wordsmith: Words invented by William Shakespeare.

arsguide

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:27:17 -0500

haha - thats funny John.

sidenote

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:16:03 -0500

Bitch.

zodak

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:12:52 -0500

Expellilexicus!

MacMuttonchops

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:07:55 -0500

I feel sorry for the guy. This was his life. It's not like people who didn't go out and buy and read the books already are planning on reading the Lexicon website, so why the big deal?