J.K. Rowling is a fucking bitch

[Takezo]

please no high horsing about "well i dont see what Harry Potter has to do with  religion...................". Do you guys know what children are? They like this crap, along with cookies and candy, carnival rides, and any other combination of crap you'll see at your average church raffle or function. Why should we hold them to a different standard then we hold ourselves. At what point can you reasonably assert that the religious purity of this festival (key word festival) has been tarnished by something as corrupt as entertainment.

she's allowing them to continue using the theme after she gets her two million rupee cut, which sort of turns us back to what ashton and a few others recognize. It's not at all about protecting her work, or "her not being greedy but still needing to send a message". It's about making sure she gets every nickel out of this that she can. They're not charging more than 50,000 because they likely realize that's about as much as they realistically CAN charge and still get paid.












I also support lawsuits against nurseries for painting unauthorized murals of disney characters.

[everluck]

If you don't defend your IP, you lose it.

At least that's how copyrights work in the U.S., I'm pretty sure.

I'm not saying things one way or the other: she may be a greedy whore, she may be a saint; who's to say? But you guys have to keep the law in mind, too (unless you do have it in mind, and I'm completely off base :P ).

[Takezo]

If you don't defend your IP, you lose it.

At least that's how copyrights work in the U.S., I'm pretty sure.

I'm not saying things one way or the other: she may be a greedy whore, she may be a saint; who's to say? But you guys have to keep the law in mind, too (unless you do have it in mind, and I'm completely off base :P ).

Well why not charge a smaller token amount? After all she is a billionare and would never sue out of greed. I appreciate what she's done, honestly. Getting kids interested in them there word books again is something that we should all be grateful for, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that she's not doing this for the money because she clearly loves the stuff.  I can say this pretty confidently actually...  Calvin and Hobbes. Other than the books, have you ever seen any authorized merchandise of his work? No, probably because there isn't any.

[Tooker]

Calvin and Hobbes. Other than the books, have you ever seen any authorized merchandise of his work? No, probably because there isn't any.

Those stupid Calvin peeing on things (or praying to things) stickers are mighty annoying just because, but the fact that the author didn't want any merchandise made actually ticks me off more.  (Seriously.  I might not feel this way if Calvin & Hobbes weren't so awesome, though.)

[Hidoshi]

If you don't defend your IP, you lose it.

At least that's how copyrights work in the U.S., I'm pretty sure.

I'm not saying things one way or the other: she may be a greedy whore, she may be a saint; who's to say? But you guys have to keep the law in mind, too (unless you do have it in mind, and I'm completely off base :P ).

I see that as the whole basis of what's wrong with U.S. copyright law. The author should be allowed to retain the IP throughout selective defense. However, I'm fairly certain British copyright law has clauses about selective defence, seeing as the U.S. version is (to my knowledge) the only legislation where an all-or-nothing approach has been taken.

And yeah, either way, a smaller token amount seems good enough. I could see this being a problem if say, Rowling wanted to open a theme park in India, but I doubt that's the case. And even if it is, this fixture looks to be temporary, so what's the big deal? I'm almost certain no one would have taken notice outside of a small community if no legal action had been brought against the display.