This sickens me

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-12 03:22am

J. K. Rowling is sueing someone for copyright infringements.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021110/80/debfd.html

And what? She never ripped off other peoples ideas? I spent the whole movie going... Hmm... Thats ripped from this book, and didn't I see that in Star Wars, wait - this is playing out just like that scene from...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-12 07:14am

It does seem like plaigarism, but considering Rowling is the proverbial monkey with a typewriter and an nfinite amount of time...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-12 08:51am

Cyril wrote:It does seem like plaigarism, but considering Rowling is the proverbial monkey with a typewriter and an nfinite amount of time...

Oh, come on. We might not like them but they are decently written books, well so says anyone that read one, and she doesn't deserve that slander. And besides, anything that can get kids reading is good by me.

And it sound like that Ruskie ripped off Harry Potter lock, stock and barrel.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-12 11:47am

If he is parodying it, then it's legitimate. If not, then it does need to be translated to a language lawyers understand (if that's possible) so that it can be checked for infringement. Of course, half of Rowling's ideas are ripped straight out of other books anyway, so her suing someone would be very funny.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2002-11-12 11:57am

Rowling incorporated a lot of mythology and legend in her works, but I don't know of any modern book she "ripped off". Since she's drawing on a lot of common themes in Western (especially British) literature, there's obviously going to be similarities between her works and others (it's not like George Lucas invented the "orphaned everyman discovers he has extraordinary powers and/or is destined to be a hero" story).

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-11-12 12:08pm

I think that weemadando's point was that for someone who copies so much from others shouldn't complain when people return the favor.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-12 12:21pm

Cyril wrote:It does seem like plaigarism, but considering Rowling is the proverbial monkey with a typewriter and an nfinite amount of time...

I like the books. Have you ever read them? The first two are a bit childish, but the third and the fourth are excellent.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-12 01:15pm

I'll grap a copy of these books and see if I can spot any diffrences

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-12 07:13pm

On the one hand, I think that parodies should be allowed. On the other hand, parodying has absolutely NOTHING to do with "showing Russian literature" is capable of producing an international sensation. I think I have to side with Rowling, on this one, just because I find the other guy such a complete loser.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-12 08:11pm

The Harry Potter books are pretty good. They aren't ripoffs of other works, much like Star Wars is not a direct ripoff of anything, despite the fact that is consiously incorporates many mythological elements into it.

As for the Russian version, I can't really say until I acrually read a copy (which will probably be never)

Post by **fgalkin** » 2002-11-12 08:58pm

Here's the fun part:
A Russian writer named Nick Perumov wrote a series of books based IN TOLKIEN'S MIDDLE-EARTH (as in Shire, Gondor, etc), which sold over a million copies in Russia, AND NO ONE NOTICED.

The books were very good, btw.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-12 09:02pm

As children crowded forwards to have Tanya Grotter books signed, Yemets said he would give a prize to the first to tell the main distinction between Tanya Grotter and Harry Potter.

Nine-year-old Alexander's hand shot up.

"There is no difference, they're basically exactly the same," he said. He did not win a prize

Ouch.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-11-12 09:30pm

Wasn't Rowling almost sued when some American woman said she ripped off her "Larry Potter" books?

I don't but her story. She just wanted money.

I don't need to know why Rowling has to sue. She's one of the richest women in England!

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-12 10:04pm

Writers and other artists tend to get protective of their work. It's not like she's losing too much money, but she wants her work to remain hers.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-12 10:56pm

IG-88E wrote:
As children crowded forwards to have Tanya Grotter books signed, Yemets said he would give a prize to the first to tell the main distinction between Tanya Grotter and Harry Potter.

Nine-year-old Alexander's hand shot up.

"There is no difference, they're basically exactly the same," he said. He did not win a prize
Ouch.

Now that is fucking hilarious. Just goes to show, you can never trust a kid.

Sienthal · Post by **Sienthal** » 2002-11-13 12:25am

I do side with Rowling on this one. Normally I've only seen parodies posted on the web or in free mags, not sold.

On a side note, I've read the books, and they're not that bad. I used to read them all the time to my little cousins when they stayed with us over the summer.

Post by **Zaia** » 2002-11-13 01:33am

WeeMadAndo wrote:J. K. Rowling is sueing someone for copyright infringements.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/021110/80/debfd.html

And what? She never ripped off other peoples ideas? I spent the whole movie going... Hmm... Thats ripped from this book, and didn't I see that in Star Wars, wait - this is playing out just like that scene from...

First of all, have you read the books? If not, be quiet. Her words are what she is concerned over, not the way the scenes played out in the movie.

Secondly, books (obviously) are not movies. There's a difference between plagiarizing some/most of a 400-page book and alluding to a sequence or two from films that have become part of pop culture.

Lastly, I found the books to be excellent, and was never struck by the thought that J.K. Rowling had stolen either her plot or her characters. Speaking as an educator, it is amazing what her books have done for young children who otherwise couldn't give a shit about reading. In my opinion, what you should be complaining about are the paranoid Christian psycho-moms who think that the books should be banned because J.K. Rowling is trying to convert all the children of the world to Wicca and teaches them that "Witchcraft is fun!" How evil of her to have Harry Potter magic wands for sale at toy stores! She must worship Satan! Anyone who doesn't believe what we believe must be trying to corrupt our kids and must therefore love Satan and belong to the Occult!

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2002-11-13 01:54am

Parodies are OK, just don't try to sell it or pass it off as original. Rowling's right...
P.S...
LONG LIVE HARRY POTTER!

punkgothhippie · Post by **punkgothhippie** » 2002-11-13 10:59am

Oh, come on. We might not like them but they are decently written books, well so says anyone that read one, and she doesn't deserve that slander. And besides, anything that can get kids reading is good by me.

I believe that if children are read/or read certain books at a young age that they might in fact become different people. Reading the correct books might change the outcome of what a specific child might turn out to be as an adult...Thus i believe that not all books even if they do in fact get children to read is a good book or a good thing that the child is reading the book.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-13 11:09am

punkgothhippie wrote:
Oh, come on. We might not like them but they are decently written books, well so says anyone that read one, and she doesn't deserve that slander. And besides, anything that can get kids reading is good by me.
I believe that if children are read/or read certain books at a young age that they might in fact become different people. Reading the correct books might change the outcome of what a specific child might turn out to be as an adult...Thus i believe that not all books even if they do in fact get children to read is a good book or a good thing that the child is reading the book.

The first trick is to get them to like reading long enough to read good books. I don't think that anyone here advocates getting kids to read the Comunist Manifesto just to get kids to read, but if a kid will read a silly book or something that wouldn't appeal to say, a 18 year old, then atleast they are reading and hopefully like doing it enough to continue reading for many years to come.

Post by **Zaia** » 2002-11-13 09:44pm

Knife wrote: The first trick is to get them to like reading long enough to read good books. I don't think that anyone here advocates getting kids to read the Comunist Manifesto just to get kids to read, but if a kid will read a silly book or something that wouldn't appeal to say, a 18 year old, then atleast they are reading and hopefully like doing it enough to continue reading for many years to come.

The good thing about the Harry Potter books is that they are interesting to the kids and good books of their own right. I am very much into literature and can tolerate very little trash, and I thoroughly enjoyed the series. The only people I've heard who have had problems with 7-year-old children attempting to read 400-page books were the psycho-Christians who thought their kids were being brainwashed into Satanism.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-13 09:59pm

My complaint was that she does draw so heavily on existing literary and cultural sources that it seems wrong for her to criticise someone ripping her off.

I have little respect for her as an author, but concede that her books are an excellent tool for getting children reading and shitting fundies at the same time.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-13 10:20pm

weemadando wrote:My complaint was that she does draw so heavily on existing literary and cultural sources that it seems wrong for her to criticise someone ripping her off.

I have little respect for her as an author, but concede that her books are an excellent tool for getting children reading and shitting fundies at the same time.

I don't think she plagiarizes anyone else's work. It is important to build off of other writers. If no one had learned from Twain and Hawthorne, many excellent books never would have been written. When you look at what someone else has done, then blend their techniques with your own style, it is a good thing. When you plagiarize someone else, it is obviously a negative.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-13 10:21pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
weemadando wrote:My complaint was that she does draw so heavily on existing literary and cultural sources that it seems wrong for her to criticise someone ripping her off.

I have little respect for her as an author, but concede that her books are an excellent tool for getting children reading and shitting fundies at the same time.
I don't think she plagiarizes anyone else's work. It is important to build off of other writers. If no one had learned from Twain and Hawthorne, many excellent books never would have been written. When you look at what someone else has done, then blend their techniques with your own style, it is a good thing. When you plagiarize someone else, it is obviously a negative.

I myself build off of Robert Jordan.

Post by **Zaia** » 2002-11-13 10:24pm

WeeMadAndo wrote:My complaint was that she does draw so heavily on existing literary and cultural sources that it seems wrong for her to criticise someone ripping her off.

I have little respect for her as an author, but concede that her books are an excellent tool for getting children reading and shitting fundies at the same time.

Have you read them? Or are you just saying this because her books are a fad and therefore must be crap?