http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2008-04-20.shtml
-
Literatur — 17 years ago(May 07, 2008 02:39 PM)
And Lexicon writers did not invent the stuff they write about and do get paid.
And people who write dictionaries did not invent the language they write about but still get money for their effort.
Same for people who write grammar-books etc. -
Reganne22 — 15 years ago(April 11, 2010 09:11 AM)
I know this comment was made 2 years ago but I just had to address how absolutely ridiculous it is. lol
The guys who make advertisements for Coke get paid and Coke's not theirs.
Yeah, they get paid by the people who own COKE to advertise their product for them. Much like how WB pay people to make Harry Potter advertisements to promote the movies, or how Bloomsbury/Scholastic pay people to make posters and advertisements to promote the Harry Potter books. This situation is in no way comparable to a guy selling a book using Rowling's characters, world and occasionally her own words. -
febarbieheadsfree — 17 years ago(May 06, 2008 06:33 PM)
And he was the only one? There are many Harry POtter sites. Does that mean they all deserve money? No way. They didn't create the information therefore they should not get money for something that's not theirs.
-
northoftheriver — 17 years ago(May 12, 2008 02:59 PM)
Here here Orson Scott Card!!!
He's a fabulous writer and JKR has stolen ideas from him and Tolkein and The Bible and
The list is endless.
A reference book is not theft.
There is only one who is worthy of worship and I haven't met Her yet. NOTR -
febarbieheadsfree — 17 years ago(May 12, 2008 10:37 PM)
You can't steal from the Bible, c'mon. If that were true, the Golden Compass, Narnia, as well as LotR would be considered stolen information. There's a basic story idea and each author branched off it.
That's not stealing, it's creating.
The reference book is more like a "take things from J.K. Rowling and not credit her, while also plotting out the futures of her characters and keeping all the money they didn't earn for themselves" -
northoftheriver — 17 years ago(May 13, 2008 02:06 AM)
C'mon. I realize that you can't steal from the Bible. My point is that there is no totally original creation, especially the Harry Potter books. It's an original story but draws on many literary sources.
If I adhered to your argument every reference book would be stealing, which they are not. SVA did not make claims that his work was original. He just categorized JKR's books. That is not stealing. Her argument in my view is baseless. She did not manage to overwhelmingly convince the judge and rightfully so.
There is only one who is worthy of worship and I haven't met Her yet. NOTR -
zoltan42 — 17 years ago(May 13, 2008 04:28 AM)
"If I adhered to your argument every reference book would be stealing, which they are not. SVA did not make claims that his work was original."
Immaterial. While all instances of plagiarism are copyright violations, all copyright violations are not instances of plagiarism. The WB/JKR stance is that the bulk of the proposed book is lifted word for word from her books. Even if it is all cited correctly and attributed to her, it can still be copyright violations. If it's 100% paraphrased or 100% word for word from her books it would be easy to make a decision. It's the middle ground where things are murky. There has been no clear standard you can't cross, e.g., 40% or 50%.
Also, material must be cited correctly, with MLA standards as the general format, such as citing the exact page and chapter and using quotation marks to punctuate material taken directly from the cited work. The only thing we really have to go in is the Lexicon si1ebcte, and a scan shows it does not follow MLA. He cites chapters but not pages, which is not sufficient. Quotation marks are almost non-existent. If IF the book is indeed simply a print version of material from the site, then he does not cite material correctly.
"He just categorized JKR's books. That is not stealing. Her argument in my view is baseless."
It depends on how it was categorized. If it's all or almost all in his own words, then, yes, her suit is baseless.
"She did not manage to overwhelmingly convince the judge and rightfully so."
Neither did he.
Cheney-Voldemort '08 -
febarbieheadsfree — 17 years ago(May 13, 2008 08:24 AM)
First she stole from the Bible, then you say you can't steal from it that would be kind of confusing if I didn't understand what you meant. I just can't see how her book series is considered stolen material. C'mon.
Other reference books go off predictions of the later books or. Van Ark is just making a world of something that's not his. Doesn't help that he barely cites his work (that's from a document I read a while back) -
HarryFreakinPotter — 17 years ago(May 13, 2008 12:26 PM)
Honestly, for a guy who claims to have all this "respect" he sure does a lot of bitching about something he clearly hasn't researched properly, may I remind people that the author with the "Larry Potter" character in her book only added "and the Muggles" to the title of her novel after JKR success so she could sue Jo for plaigarism(sp?).
-
QuibblerofDoom — 17 years ago(May 23, 2008 05:50 AM)
April 20 2008 The Mail on Sunday Page 47
J. K. Rowling
AN ARTICLE in last week's Mail on Sunday said that Warner Bros had begun a legal battle with a film director who claims to have devised an earlier version of Harry potter. There is no such legal battle. We accept that J. K. Rowling is the sole creat1c84or of her Harry Potter character and that there are no material similarities between her books and the film mentioned. -
QuibblerofDoom — 17 years ago(May 14, 2008 07:21 AM)
I know Thumbelina112233 you would think he would have checked to see the outcome of the infamous Nancy Stouffer v JK Rowling case?
As for JKR "copying" JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis, I am a fan of both of them however their stuff wasn't all that original either, they "copied" people like William Morris and his work The Well at the World's End. Fantasy didn't start with these two you know. -
bivil — 17 years ago(June 26, 2008 04:17 PM)
Honestly, for a guy who claims to have all this "respect" he sure does a lot of bitching about something he clearly hasn't researched properly, may I remind people that the author with the "Larry Potter" character in her book only added "and the Muggles" to the title of her novel after JKR success so she could sue Jo for plaigarism(sp1c84?).
Speaking of proper research, Orson Scott Card isn't claiming "to have all this 'respect.'" And speaking of proper research again, Nancy K. Stouffer didn't write
Larry Potter and the Muggles
. The characters were in separate stories, which is a fact that you, Card, and most of the world seem unable to get straight. By the way, I realize that you're on a first-name basis with Rowling and must therefore be a close personal friend, but do your best to step back and get a clearer perspective. That's the advice Jackie Derrida used to give me. -
Grizzly_McThornbristle — 17 years ago(July 28, 2008 07:16 PM)
One cannot begin to discuss the literary meritis of Orson Scott Card; he has none. He is not a writer to be praised within literary circles, to put it nicelyhe is not a great writer (albeit better than Rowling). For him to write of "subliterature" is, to my mind, ironic. Card churns out those formulaic fantasy/sci-fi novels that you can find loaded on the shelves in any bookstore.
I can name various authors in just the sci-fi/fantasy field who make Card look like an amatuer (which, really, isn't too difficult). For example: Ray Bradbury, John Crowley, Susanna Clarke, Neil Gaiman, Gene Wolfe, Peter Beagle, and the list goes on.
He mentions the plot line that Rowling supposedly "stole" from him. That is probably the most common of plot lines to be found in genre fiction.
The Worst Witch
by Jill Murphy is much more similar to
Harry Potter
than is
Ender's Game
. And (I believe)
The Worst Witch
was published eleven years before
Ender's Game
. Can I therefore make the argument that Card "stole" from Murphy? Or from tons of other books published before
Ender's Game
in the fantasy/sci-fi genre?
Rowling is not that talented, although I found her books fun (which isn't saying much). Orson Scott Card isn't a huge talent either (although, as mentioned before, more talented than Rowling). If a similar argument is made by Cormac McCarthy or Neil Gaiman or John Crowley or Gene Wolfe, then I will listen. But Scott writes the same formulaic "subliterature" of which he speaks (or, as is true in this case, writes).
Life is a disease: sexually transmitted, and invariably fatal.- Neil Gaiman