No you may not name he who shalt not be named, only I can!

[W1nTry]

Funny

Harry Potter and the Injunction of Ecirava

How much money does a multimillionairess need?

By Andrew Thomas: Thursday, 15 November 2007, 8:00 AM

INTELLECTUALIS PROPERTISSIMUS! J.K. Rowling, who, since the first Harry Potter book appeared, has been fighting a one-woman campaign to prove that money can't buy happiness, has taken out an injunction against a Website she once publically praised.

Fansite the Harry Potter Lexicon had planned to publish a hardcopy volume of its wizard facts, only to discover that the lawyers who must not be named have slapped a writ on them saying that the absurdly-rich Rowling has the sole right to profit from the "descriptions, character details, and plot points" of the Harry Potter series.

It would appear that it was OK for the material to appear on a web site, but that the Wrath of Rowling was invoked when the site had the temerity to publish a book. La Rowling claims she had planned to produce a similar work herself, but hadn't got round to it yet as she hadn't yet finished counting all her money. She is also obviously concerned that any book with her name on the cover would fail to sell if a rival Potter encyclopaedia were to materialise.

The Lexicon contains plot summaries, maps and detailed information on Harry Potter's world and sounds like just the sort of thing young Potter fans would love to see in their Christmas stockings.

On her own site, Rowling says: "It is not reasonable, or legal, for anybody, fan or otherwise, to take an author's hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain. However much an individual claims to love somebody else's work, it does not become theirs to sell." µ

[New Era Outlaw]

Actually, I can see where she's coming from. Regardless of how rich I might be, if I create something, and somebody tries to profit off of it using my creations, I still pretty much retain the rights to it. It is my right as the original author of the work, since it is my creation and not theirs. In other words, SCREW them. I am not going to allow somebody to make money off of my ideas, at least not unless I get some cut out of it.

With that said, tough for the HP Lexicon.
I'm with Rowling on this.


P.S.: Is it just me, or is this yet another case of the media trying to rile up people?

[AvatarTT]

Yeah I'm with Rowling too.

Maybe a real life Rita Skeeter wrote that article 

[Exar_Kun]

I'm with Rowling.
It's her stuff, she decides who can do what with it. Her being a billionaire doesn't have a thing to do with it.

[New Era Outlaw]

My point exactly. I think whoever wrote that article was trying to invoke people to think:

"She's already stinking rich and she's suing some poor bastards for trying to pay tribute to her work for more money?! That B**CH!!"

[W1nTry]

I agree with her as well honestly, just perhaps a nice PR way to do it would have been that she intended to provide similar works and donate THOSE proceeds to charity cause at the end of the day, when you got that much doosh yuh ought to give back some damnit!