Is it just me, or does anyone else find this case a little distasteful..?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7346093.stm

JK Rowling has made an absolute fortune from her Potter books, and to me, this just seems like greed.

As Terry Pratchett recently put it "In fantasy writing, accusations of copying are very difficult to make. You know, who invented wizards? Who invented Goblins? If we are going to start paying royalties for nicking another's idea, we'd all have given our live savings to the Tolkien family a long time ago."

It's very hard to say if JKR is being fair or not.

The fact she has profited form her work is irrelevant, it would be like saying it's OK to pirate songs that have sold over X amount of copies because the record company and artiste have profited enough already.

I know Disney are super-hot on protecting their copyrights and have on occasion appeared to be acting rather meanly but in the real world you can only have a blanket "no" as otherwise deciding on a case-by-case basis would be prohibitive and legally complex.

JKR's comment on her own encyclopaedia's profits going to charity seems crass and self-serving.

It does appear that J.K Rowling is trying to capture the idea of goblins, witchcraft, wizards etc all for herself when a thousand writers have paved the way through history before her and probably for a pittance.

Part good luck and part good timing and part a great idea-she has made a fortune. The charity angle is a bit stomach churning and her tears angle is positively nutty-she should have just come to an arrangement with the guy.

Comparing to Disney isn't too fair either as there is always the claim that they ripped off the idea of Mickey Mouse from Felix the Cat !!

Her reaction does seem a bit over-the-top. Tolkein and Lewis both seemed happy enough to allow others to publish dictionaries and references to their creations, knowing that it could only help direct people to their original works, if they were ever read by people who weren't already fans. Most writers see it as a tribute, and some as an honour.

I don't think anyone is trying to claim that Rowling did not create Harry Potter or Hogwarts, although when I read the first book I did have the feeling I'd read bits of it before, so I assume she was 'influenced' by other writers.

She should be happy with the extra publicity - if that's not what the legal action is really all about - although she doesn't really need it.

I think her greed is perfectly illustrated by the fact that she was more than happy to endorse the website. It was only when they planned to turn the website into a book that she decided her work was being 'stolen'.