Why God, Why?


 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Children hate Excitement

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
ViewSonic
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2013-05-05
Location : Where the lonely people come from

PostSubject: Children hate Excitement   Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:34 pm

Let's start a Legend of Rah and the Muggles thread!

So in 2000 Mrs Nancy Stouffer filed a lawsuit against JK Rowling for claiming that JK's book was infringing
on her copyrights with a particular book, the Legend of Rah and the Muggles.

Muggles, right?

She had apparently copyrighted that word. So people took this time to look at Stouffer's book, and found it very...

...bad.

This isn't even the kind of bad that is interesting. This is the "let's never read again" kind of sheer glurgey suck.

First off, here is a list of the things Nancy claims to have copyrighted:
"Muggle, Muggles, Muggle-Bye, Muggledome, Muggleplication (does this sound like a fucking joke or what),
Shadow Monsters,
Nevil, Nevils, Nardles, Greeblies, Nadie and Neddie, Spooners of the Deep, Winkle, Elders, Zyn, Rah"

Has anybody noticed that she is trying to copyright the word "elders"?

I have no idea how to get to the book itself outside of a few random pages, but look, here's a five star review
on Amazon, one of two!

anonymous wrote:
Okay, everyone, stop comparing this book to adult novels. Admit it. You are just being protective of another Potter and it just is not fair to do that to any author. This is a young children's book for Heaven's sake! And a delightful one at that. Nancy has crafted a wonderful trip through the imagination and your children will very much enjoy this at bedtime. There's nothing in it to cause scary nightmares--something that Nancy Stouffer seems to have taken into consideration. The illustrations are very cute and colorful, drawn by the author herself. My son loved the story. Keep in mind that this book was written when J. K. Rowling was still wet behind the ears and Potter was just an idea (at the very best), shall we say floating in the air? Nancy never claimed to invent the word Muggles, but it is attached to her well developed characters in the story. She has every right to protect her trademark.
Also, keep in mind, this is a book that turned the publishing world upside down and landed a multi-billion dollar publishing and media conglomerate in court. If there was no merit to this book, how would Ms. Stouffer get as far as she did? For the historical significance alone I have this book on my shelf (and secretly read it after my son went to sleep; it's a nice break from the very heavy reads with which my days are usually filled).
hmm hmm hmm.
Back to top Go down
Disco Stu
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2009-10-22
Age : 33

PostSubject: Re: Children hate Excitement   Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:35 pm

why do all the jokey writers like to sound so urpley? why?
Back to top Go down
ViewSonic
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2013-05-05
Location : Where the lonely people come from

PostSubject: Re: Children hate Excitement   Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:15 am

"The Legend of Rah and the Muggles is a much shorter book than the page-count above might suggest: the type is extremely large and the page margins likewise. It is also a very badly published book; clearly Thurman House does not believe in quaint customs like editing, copy-editing and proofreading (I liked the idea of a bright star shinning in the sky, and especially approved of the term "dinning room"). The text reads as if it's a somewhat inaccurate transcript of an oral presentation, complete with shifts of tense (between past and present) and countless typographical and grammatical errors -- a few spelling errors, too. Furthermore, this being a fantasy for young children, someone should have pointed out to Stouffer the meaning of the word "bugger", which she uses frequently and clearly regards as innocuous."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Boy, you have the Shinning!"
"Do you mean the Shining?"
"Shh...do you want to get sued?"

Here's an excerpt from the book, from a particular chapter where Nancy Stouffer
(published as "NK Stouffer"-absolutely fucking shameless), wherein the words Greeblies
and Nardle are used enough times to make you want  to cry.

Greeblies are fat ratlike rodents that live in Sticky Icky Swamp and often hide beneath boulders. They are nocturnal little pests with faces that resemble rabbits', and their large round ears curl slightly forward at the top. Their bodies are covered with gray coarse hair with black tips that look like they were dipped in ink.

Greeblies have short legs, but they can jump five feet in the air from a sitting position. Their long, coiled tails are used to quickly grab and snatch anything of interest to them, before being seen.

They have been known to grab hold of Muggle legs from behind and drag them frantically for yards and yards, before letting them go. Most often their goal is to steal food or raid the garbage.

Only two things frighten Greeblies: sand dogs called Nardles, and getting caught in a trap set by the Muggles -- who would more than likely use them as dinner for their pet Nardles.

Nardles live in burrows along the shoreline, and Greeblies won't go near them. Even though the Greeblies are difficult to see, the Nardles can smell them a mile away.
Back to top Go down
ViewSonic
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2013-05-05
Location : Where the lonely people come from

PostSubject: Re: Children hate Excitement   Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:20 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I didn't want to bog down my last post with this other one, but take a look at this.
It's the court case Stouffer v Rowling. If you can read between the lines, maybe with
some knowledge of legalese, you can tell whoever wrote it is absolutely seething about
his time being wasted by this blatant cash grab.

In conclusion, the Court finds, by clear and convincing [*58] evidence,
that Stouffer has perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of
fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony. Such
finding requires that the Court next determine the appropriate sanction to
impose. In making that determination, the Court considers five factors: (i)
whether the misconduct was the product of intentional bad faith; (ii)
whether and to what extent the misconduct prejudiced the plaintiffs; (iii)
whether there was a pattern of misbehavior rather than an isolated instance;
(iv) whether and when the misconduct was corrected; (v) whether further
misconduct is likely to occur in the future. See McMunn, supra, 191 F.
Supp.2d at 461.

Plaintiffs seek two types of sanctions: the dismissal of Stouffer's
counterclaims and the award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in this action. In granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
the Court has already dismissed Stouffer's claims; thus, the Court need not
address the issue of whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction. With
respect to plaintiffs' legal fees and costs, the Court finds that an award
of such fees and costs is appropriate given the fact that Stouffer
has engaged in a pattern of intentional bad faith conduct and failed to
correct her fraudulent submissions, even when confronted with evidence
undermining the validity of those submissions. It is true that Stouffer is
the defendant in this action and thus not all of the attorneys' fees and
costs incurred by plaintiffs in this action are attributable to Stouffer's
fraud on the Court. However, Stouffer's calculated generation of fraudulent
documents and testimony undoubtedly imposed burdens on plaintiffs by
increasing the legal fees and expenses incurred by plaintiffs in the
investigation and defense of her counterclaims. Accordingly, the Court
awards a monetary sanction against Stouffer in the amount of $ 50,000.

In addition, the Court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory
award of attorneys' fees and costs with respect to their defense of
Stouffer's trademark claims. Under the Lanham Act, prevailing parties in
trademark infringement actions may be awarded attorneys' fees and costs in
"exceptional cases." 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The Second Circuit has held that
fees will only be awarded upon evidence of fraud or bad faith. See Conopco,
Inc. v. Campbell Soup Co., 95 F.3d 187, 194 (2d Cir. 1996)
(citations omitted). Here the Court finds that Stouffer has asserted claims
and defenses without any reasonable basis in fact or law and has attempted
to support such claims and defenses with items of evidence that have been
created or altered for purposes of this litigation. This Court has granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with respect to Stouffer's Lanham
Act claims and finds that there is clear evidence of Stouffer's fraud and
bad faith in the prosecution of such claims. Accordingly, plaintiffs are
awarded their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending those claims.
Back to top Go down
StandupShady
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-03-13

PostSubject: Re: Children hate Excitement   Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:59 am

Quote :
"Here the Court finds that Stouffer has asserted claims
and defenses without any reasonable basis in fact or law and has attempted
to support such claims and defenses with items of evidence that have been
created or altered for purposes of this litigation."
Ho-lee shit. This woman seriously pissed the court off.....
Back to top Go down
Aggie
Armbiter of Good Fanfiction
Armbiter of Good Fanfiction
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-11

PostSubject: Re: Children hate Excitement   Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:49 pm

Does this woman still maintain her 'innocence,' even after losing her lawsuit and being forced to reimburse the Rowling estate for the trouble she put them all through?
Back to top Go down
ViewSonic
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2013-05-05
Location : Where the lonely people come from

PostSubject: Re: Children hate Excitement   Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:02 pm

Here's a transcript of an interview with the author! Want to know who the interviewer was?
Well, that isn't given, but why not read this and figure it out for yourself?

HAS YOUR LIFE BEEN THREATENED?

This is the best way to start an interview!

Yes. I have received several threats to my life. The F. B. I. has been notified.

I have also had a number of profane e-mails from avid HP fans, using terminology claimed from JKR’s books.

It makes me wonder what they have gained from reading Ms. Rowling’s work.

I don’t believe I could ever be proud of the fact that my work was encouraging young readers to feel that it’s okay to attack anyone, the way they have violated me.

Especially, because I’m the victim in this case, not Ms. Rowling

So, in answer to you, Aggie...yes.

Even more disconcerting, is the fact that they are certainly aware of the substance of some of the chat room conversations and their fans’ intent, and have taken no action to discourage this profane and life-threatening behavior.

And, in the absence of any corrective action on their part, are in fact encouraging it. I have to ask parents---is this really what we want for our children?

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE INFRINGEMENTS ON YOUR PROPERTIES AND TRADEMARKS?

The infringements that didn't happen?

I believe that Scholastic Inc., Arthur A. Levine and J. K. Rowling have committed trademark infringements and have competed unfairly, irreparably damaging my properties and goals.

"Because seeing as it was a book that was totally different and didn't even have a similar title, it was intensely threatening to my business."

I didn't wait until three books had been printed before taking action. I was like most people, who were completely unaware of the
books until their meteoric rise in popularity last year.

An acquaintance of mine pointed the books out to me in July 1999, expressing astonishment at how of my materials had been included.

Especially, as Nancy pointed out in her suit, the inclusion of a GREAT HALL. Gasp!

I did some reading, then immediately contacted Scholastic, Inc.

The third book had not yet been published. I communicated with Scholastic for several months, in good faith, trying to reach an amicable settlement with all of the parties involved.

It appeared to me that I was the only one operating in good faith, an appearence confirmed when Scholastic, Rowling, and Time-Warner filed suit against me without any prior warning that they desired to discontinue discussions.

Untrue. She filed suit first.

None of the books were released with a license to use my trademarks, nor with any consideration fo unfair trade practices.

ARE YOU JEALOUS OF J. K. ROWLING’S SUCCESS?

No.

Rolling Eyes

This is the question most often asked of me by children.

can only say to them that I am not the jealous type

I enjoy encouraging others to succeed, but I am very firm in my position that you can’t take from another to accomplish those goals, especially not without their permission.

I will give you an example of how strongly I feel about encouraging others to succeed--

When I started this web site, I heard about a sixteen year old boy who was trying to start his own computer web design company. I called him and he now works with me, and has formed his own company. I designed him a logo, and give him all of the credit and encouragement I can. His company name is Olsen Online. There is not a question in my mind that he has every bit the potential of Bill Gates, his idol.

Google search results for which return...nothing. Good job!

There is something else I should tell you about Mr. Olsen: he didn’t even have his own computer at home until June of 2000. He learned to navigate and understand the technical aspects of programming by reading and thinking-through applications with primarily his mind, and by using the school library computer when he could.

There are many creative people out there who deserve our support and gratitude, and I make every effort I can to share my gratitude and acknowledge their importance in the world. I know what it feels like to be on an island with boats passing by every day, that don’t see the fire-burning S. O. S., inside of you.

When my boat passes by someone’s island, I stop every chance I get, and welcome them aboard.

I filed my copyrights and applied trademarks involved in this case beginning in 1984. Four copyrights were filed for the Muggle(s) properties, two for the Lilly and Larry Potter properties, and two for the Nimbus properties.

Oh, yeah forgot to mention those. Suffice it to say the "Lilly and Larry Potter" thing was a scam.

WHEN WERE YOUR BOOKS PUBLISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME?

Testing began in 1984 and continued through 1986, and the books were distributed to retailers in 1987 through 1989, and a promotional copy in 1997.

HOW WELL DID YOUR BOOKS SELL?

The books sold very well

Oh, I'm sure they did.

We distributed over 100,000 copies of each title printed for distribution throughout the east coast and other sites across the United
States, and all were sold within a week. Requests from distributors and the public for the books, prompted Warner to offer me four different contracts for the books.

WHY DIDN’T YOU ACCEPT THE WARNER CONTRACTS?

I didn’t accept the contracts, because I couldn’t at the time. There were claims being made for the copyrights and trademarks by my first publisher, and before I could enter into another agreement I had to clear the title rights through the Federal Courts. Although I had been completely successful, and the Court gave me exclusive ownership to all of the copyrights and trademarks, it had taken a great deal of time.

Legend of Rah and the Muggles and two additional books in the series. I am also completing a new book for the Silver Linings series.

WHERE DID YOU GET THE NAMES FOR THE CHARACTERS AND TITLES OF YOUR BOOKS?

My children were my greatest source for my characters, but I also made it a point to include names of the very special people who have helped me throughout the years

The people named Naddie, Neddie, Zyn, and Rah!

The Muggles in my books came from my son Vance, who as a little boy, would asked me if he could kiss my muggies, that’s what he called my cheeks, and the rest was history----I started calling him my little Muggle.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT J. K. ROWLING'S EXPLANATION AS TO HOW SHE CAME-UP WITH HER NAMES?

I must say that I am a bit confused by her answers.

When she was first asked this question she stated that she didn’t know where she got the name Muggle(s). She has now come-up with a new explanation for her usage of this name, and a couple of others.

She has also stated since then, that a friend had to remind her where she got one of her other names---- it all seems like a series of very muddled explanations, and that confuses me.

I never had to think about where I got my names. I always knew if they just popped-into my head, or if someone, or something prompted me to use them.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT J. K. ROWLING’S PUBLISHER’S NEWS RELEASE THAT CALLS YOUR CLAIMS MERITLESS?

Ignoring the fact that they are meritless.

I don’t like the fact that someone as powerful as Time-Warner and Scholastic Inc. have the ability to steal someone’s property, limit
their media exposure of the nasty deed, and then call them a liar.

Nine eleven was a Jewish conspiracy and the KKK killed the dinosaurs!

When in reality, if it weren’t for the fact that they controlled the bulk of the media sources, I may have had better exposure for my point of view.

Everyone should always keep in mind, that nearly every television broadcasting company, large cable companies that deliver the network broadcasts, the bulk of the major news magazines, some newspaper syndicates and radio networking, are all involved with or controlled by the Time-Warner Group in some way; including but not limited to America Online and Microsoft internet operations.

This gives them the ability to influence the sale of products, and enables them to slant public opinion in every way, and that includes matters concerning my case.

I must tell you that it frightens me to think that the public probably doesn’t think about the power these companies have

It also frightens me that the public may not have considered the fact that I made these claims, knowing, that in order to defend my rights, and take a stand for all creative people, I would have to pay a very big price both personally and professionally.

I would also ask the public to take into consideration the fact that a law firm of the stature of the one representing my case, would
not have undertaken this case, knowing that it would cost them several million dollars to defend me, if they weren’t very sure that my claims were valid.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Children hate Excitement   

Back to top Go down
 
Children hate Excitement
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» What Pirate Set do you hate most?
» why does steven moffat hate men? (spoilers from s6, warning)
» Hate away !!
» MY Pet Hate
» I hate ebay sellers!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Why God, Why? :: The Sporking Table :: New Releases-
Jump to: