In 2001 she published 2 books where over 33 million went to charity.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/london/main242283.shtml?source=search_story

Let’s see, oh yeah, here in 2000, 2001, and 2002, it is mentioned that she is doing the encyclopedia and looking to have all profits go to charity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_2347000/2347285.stm
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-81081534.html
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F51F430710519D6&p_docnum=1

Having a site online and generating money from the ad revenue is different than taking someone’s content and making money by selling it. If this was a clear cut case of fair use, then their wouldn’t be such a debate. But while we all hate copyright infringement on some level, it exists, and it is law. If you want to live with the rest of us in society, you have to live by societies laws. If societies laws say that you can’t make a profit off of someone elses copyrighted material, than that’s the way it is.

It’s a pleasure having this convo with all of you, and going over the “F A C T S”. I so enjoy when people speak without researching first, it makes proving them idiotic that much simpler.
Liam

P.S. Try google news next time:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=harry+potter+j+k+rowling+encyclopedia+charity

And i’ll say it again.
No amount of ‘ charity ‘ justifies uses the legal system to destroy a fair use project, and
potentially set EXTREMELY damaging legal precedent.

Greed is still greed.
Satan can give 3 mil to the March of Dimes, but he would still be Satan.

1. no proof other than her words now, that she has been “waiting since 1998″ to write her version of a potter lexicon. It is disengenuous and unconvincing of her to conveniently state that NOW after it looks like this book might make some money.

2. no proof other than her words now, that she was going to give the proceeds of this “planned” potter lexicon to charity. It is disengenuous and unconvincing of her to conveniently state that NOW after it looks like this book might make some money.

3. “Fair Use” is rather precise and to the point on this, and it seems obvious that this derivative work falls squarely within the protection afforded by the law. (In America, at least).

4. she has admitted that she has frequently used the online work many times in the past, thus giving tacit approval of its existence. Copyright law states that you must aggressively pursue ALL infringers, no exceptions, otherwise you are deemed to have give up your rights to protection under the law. Black And White. No Ambiguities. Don’t just believe me, go read the law yourself. It is disengenuous and unconvincing of her to conveniently state that now she “bitterly regrets” that she used it in the past. OF COURSE SHE REGRETS IT NOW!! Now that it looks like she is going to lose her case and miss out on that paltry bit of money! Sheesh.

4. you, and every other potter fan(atic) would not give a rats azz if it was someone else in the EXACT same position and given the EXACT same facts in the case. The gift to charity is a red herring she conveniently threw in to lend some form of credence to her shabby case because she KNOWS she is in the wrong and she is hoping her money can buy her a win.

SHE is disgusting, rude, and idiotic (IMHO).

“The best way to save face is to not open your mouth to begin with”

Liam

Hey JK your books are rubbish and you can’t hold a candle to Tolkien !

As monty python put it :

Just one wafer thin mint Mrs Creosote ?

She must be a queen as she’s not covered in s*%t like the rest of us !

It was OK for her to utilize the online version of the encyclopedia for her benefit when she needed it. (BUT IT ISN’T FOR US?!) However, now that it is common knowledge and it is undermining her ability to make all of the royalties—she is ‘bitter’ that she did it? (HOW CONVENIENT!) Besides, if the “online encyclopedia” was of such great use to her while she continued writing her Harry Potter Series, it only goes to support it under FAIR USE. Otherwise it would be like an artist using a competitor’s designs for his own guidelines.

So how hard would it be to add the missing quotation marks, and add a warning that the book may contain inaccuracies? I doubt Rowling would drop the lawsuit but it would certainly take some steam out of her case.

Sory for the multiple posts. Blame WordPress.

She’s been planning it for a decade? What’s taking her so long? Starting it AFTER the other books are finished will be much harder than if she’d worked on it right along.

So it has interferred with 10% of her writing? Yeah, that’s a a real hardship!

She is just being greedy. She has no understanding of Fair Use (although I don’t know if her laws have the same protections as U.S. law). She has implicity given her tacit approval to do this by her own admission: she uses and has used the online reference many times and has recommended it to others. “stress and heartache” indeed. One more case of: He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules.

I suppose JK is right to do something about this because it is like someone writing your biography and publishing it without your consent.

The really stupid part is she should have ENDORSED this work (with some editorial say-so and input) and worked toward a royalties deal which she could give to charity if she wanted.

Her advisers (if she has any) have shafted her very hard by turning this into a court battle. Now her chosen charity will lose potential monies which will line lawyers pockets instead, as well as potentially destroying and at the very least negatively affecting the encyclopaedia and the people/fans behind it.

If you can’t work amicably with other people and trust no one else, you deserve to be paralysed by stress as you try miserably to pretend to do it all yourself…

Those who think Harry Potter is a unique work and involves no plagiarism (like JK herself) are kidding themselves. If she hasn’t already downloaded this independent work to ’steal’ back into her collective, she will do if she wins this case.

Charity, indeed.
It’s always the super rich who donate 1% of their wealth to charity that preach to others who are just starting to try and get some money from their hard work that they should be ashamed of their greed. Then proceed to plagiarise and steal as usual.

Anyway, noisey cherrity giving always bugged me.

So that makes it ok to use the legal system to destroy fair use ?

There is nothing stopping her from still creating her own, and
somehow, I think she will still profit.

There is nothing stoping her from donating some of her profits from
the final Potter book to a british charity.
The ‘Charity’ angle is just that.
An ‘angle’ to gather public sympathy for her while she tries to do
something that we SHOULD be outraged over.

From the story, “She said the book, which would cost $24.95, would compete unfairly with an encyclopedia she had been planning to create since 1998, the profits of which - possibly millions of dollars - she had planned to donate to a British charity.”

Cheers!