A piece of grand stupidity brought to my attention by Ciarra_bell

[sparkindarkness]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24189855/

It seems that this stupid stupid woman at MSNBC actually thinks that fandom (and fans in general) will be OUTRAGED at JK Rowling having the TEMERITY to sue someone for publishing her work and making money for it. I mean, really, how dare she?! Sadly, I think some in fandom are really that insane, but most really do know that certain things don’t fly - and ripping off the author’s work and trying to sell it? No, don’t pass go, don’t collect a publishing contract. DO collect a lawsuit of your choice.

The fact that she praised his internet lexicon which was NOT made for profit does NOT mean she has no right not to go pretty damn apeshit when he publishes the same for money. It's like knowing an author says they like fanfiction then get outraged because the author objects to you then publishing it for profit.

Yes, it became objectionable when it was published on paper but wasn’t when it existed on the net. The difference is because he is now ripping her work off to profit from it (and his publisher at the same time). There is a WORLD of difference between setting up your own fannish website, even paying to maintain it, and publishing a book and selling it. If the writer of this article cannot see the distinction then why is she even reporting on such news at all?

And this gets me more:
“Leaving aside the question of copyrights and the fact that your jealous guarding of the universe you created actually helped the movies (because you insisted that the cast be — well, English children rather than "90210" 32-year-old teens), the point is you're rich! Settle back and enjoy the insane power, don't horde it and ruin other people's lives.”

Excuse me? Jealous guarding of the universe you created? It’s HER property. Her creation. HER work. What right does ANYONE have to steal her ideas and make money off it?

And to add to the “bullshit” alarm:
“Then there’s that kid himself, Mr. Vander Ark. (Yeah, I know he’s 50, but he’s still a kid.) Dude gave up “Star Trek” for you! And now you’re playing a game of weepy mental chase with a kid who made a Voldemort reference on the stand … which of course, makes him Harry Potter.

He’s FIFTY YEARS OLD. He ISN’T a kid. He’s OLDER than JKR herself (I think, anyway). He may be a fanboi, but he’s still an adult who’s ripping off someone’s work for money. How in the name of gods you get the idea he is a figure deserving of sympathy I do not know.


What annoys me about this is not the news of the copywrite infringement - heh, I’d heard of that long before and the universal opinion even on most Harry Potter fandom sites (enter at your own risk! The crazy lives there!) is that he’s a silly muppet who needs a good haddocking. No, what annoys me is the ridiculous tone of the whole stupid “article” and the utter ignorance of the woman publishing it (did JKR run over her cat? I mean, seriously, the pointless comparisons to Heather Mills? Aye, I think Ms. Popkin was a Snape lover and really really REALLY pissed by the last book.) It’s almost depressing that she wasted keystrokes to write it really

Comments

[ladydyani.livejournal.com]

Frozen haddock!

The whole thing could have been avoided if the company had CHECKED with JK before going forward. Have people forgotten the need to CYA?

[buddykat.livejournal.com]

Apparently the fan originally said no to the company, and they convinced him that it was ok under "Fair Use" - which is why the publishing contract completely indemnified him and the publisher took on ALL of the legal risk.

Apparently they didn't think JKR would actually DO anything about it and take them to court. Morons.

[ladydyani.livejournal.com]

Yes, but there was still a chance. The company had to have had lawyers.

It just completely boggles me that they could have saved all this commotion by making a phone call or sending a letter.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Ah ah ah, because if you CONTACT JKR she will (most likely) say no. Because any author with a grain of sense knows better than to do otherwise (at least without being involved in the project). It is very unwise to give away your rights without good reason - apart from anything else if you truly care about your artistic creation you will demand to be part of the process of creation/editing etc (and by all reports of her activities during the film creations she WAS at least moderately exacting) to ensure no undue liberties are taken with your work. Of course that demands a commitment of time and effort that she would then have to spare.

So if they had asked, I think she would have said no, no no NO. And once they had received the "no" in writing that's it. Kaput. Any attempts to proceed will fail because they have shown beyond doubt that it ISN'T fair use (they almost acknowledge as much by asking permission)

Instead they take a big gamble - possibly reassured by idiots like Ms. Popkin, that JKR won't notice/won't CARE/won't want the negative publicity about the publication. It was a gamble and it most certainly wasn't ethical, but it could have been a really big money maker.

Where I fault them is not that they tried it this way (beyond ethical outrage) but that they didn't cave instantly when JKR made her displeasure known. The first whispers of a court case and they should have just dropped it and put their hands in the air.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Forzen haddock most certainly

As for checking with her, well see my below reply. It was a ballsy gamble, I think

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

I've heard about this several places, and it sounds retarded every time. Sheesh.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I am not amazed someone has done it or taken the risk (as I say above, it kind of works if you see it in the light of an unethical gambler) aside from anything else, Occam's hairbrush tells us there is no limit to human stupidity.

But I AM amazed at the idea there are/should be a legion of people condemning JKR for daring to protect her creation.

[sapphybelle.livejournal.com]

Obsessive fans do tend to lose brain cells at a rather rapid rate.

[thisdaydreamer.livejournal.com]

So, just because she's rich means that she shouldn't protect the very creation that made her rich?

Yep. The writer of that column is an idiot.

[gnarlycranium.livejournal.com]

Once again reminded that you're not just greatly amusing, but a lawyer, here's something that may be relevant to your interests... seeing as how it's a legal document, and highly amusing.

http://rapidshare.com/files/108625548/Berry.Moxon.Sanctions.Depo.04.18.08.doc.html