(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

julian_black
2008-02-11 06:37 pm UTC (link)

I was trying to type a response that said, "You're a complete fucking moron," only in a nicer way. So it's just as well she deleted her comment; I was failing badly in my attempt.

But here's her comment, for the record, and for ongoing lulz:

so flipping confused ...
annephoenix
2008-02-11 10:01 am UTC (link)

as far as I can tell Paramount and Gene Roddenberry never clamped down on fannish activities because fans weren't making any money off them.

But what about the MEGABUCKS Emerson ("If I can meet Harry Potter fans' needs and make money at the same time, why shouldn't I?") and presumably Melissa make off advertising on their sites? I doubt the Lexicon book would ever have made a six-figure income .. or at least not a yearly one. So it's clearly not about profiting from JK's fans from HP-related things, because WB and JKR have always made open declarations of support for Mugglenet and TLC ... well, like they did at some point openly support the Lexicon.

To be honest, I have NO idea about the legal whatsits of this case. None, and I will be v interested in the outcome of the hearing. But since the public media/press lawyers tend to consider this a landmark case, maybe it does have more merit than f_w would make one think? Maybe not ;). I truly don't know! What confuses me is all the contradictions -- I have a HP encyclopedia on my bookshelf, so *that* is not the problem; lots of people make money off HP fans so *that* can't be the main issue; JK wants to write her own book, but it's a capitalist society so *that* can't be the problem (no one ever said competition was illegal and I think it's clear we'd all buy JK's book anyway) ... I'm just so confused about what the problem actually is at this point??!!

RDR is a big problem *lol* ... What a weirdo. But again, that doesn't have anything to do with legality right? I mean just because someone is stupid that doesn't mean they're criminal. Criminally stupid, maybe ... I can only repeat: will be watching the case with interest as clearly some of the legalese types think both sides have enough merit for it to actually go to court.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	puipui 2008-02-11 08:24 pm UTC (link)
	You should post it there, just for the record. I think that would be lovely. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	llama_treats 2008-02-11 09:02 pm UTC (link)
	She can't handle four comments from people who don't agree with her? I think that may be a record. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	narcissam 2008-02-11 09:19 pm UTC (link)
	I think it was just three when she deleted! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	llama_treats 2008-02-11 09:25 pm UTC (link)
	I think we should give her a prize of some sort. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	major_dallas 2008-02-11 10:29 pm UTC (link)
	it was, one of the four comments was a reply from her to you so only 3 comments and gone, just like that LOL (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rhrsoulmates 2008-02-11 11:12 pm UTC (link)
	Want me to post a "Would someone repost the deleted comment?" comment in that thread? ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	julian_black 2008-02-11 11:27 pm UTC (link)
	ROFL! Be my guest... (Reply to this)(Parent)

vorpal_blade
2008-02-12 03:52 am UTC (link)

It doesn't matter if they're becoming millionaires from the ads on their sites. They're not making money by re-selling JKR's own words. All of the people who made money from books they wrote ABOUT HP are okay, too, and will never be sued by JKR or the WB. Nothing Emerson or Melissa does infringes on JKR's copyright. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that, yet some people keep acting like the author of a book about Christian symbolism in the HP books should have been sued because she was making money off the HP universe. Sure she was--with her own writing about HP.

This ain't brain surgery, people... Think of it this way: if certain fandom people have managed to become lawyers, the law isn't that hard to understand.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -