he idea of rippin the movie into 2 parts kill the fun & thrill of the movie.....................dosent make sense

Priyanka Palit, Jamshedpur, India

i dont think that the movie should be split into to movies i think that they should just make it really long so that we get all of the luxury of the book but arnt ripped of and having to wait another year for the rest of the movie to come out!!

Candace, W.L., Candace

I am very happy about "the Deathly Hallows" being split into two movies. I wish some of the others had been done the same way. I, as a fan, would like to see as much of the last book on film as possible.

Karen, Montgomery, AL, USA

Another thing I need to comment on after reading others comments is the fact the final book is being made into two movies because there is no possible way to cut anything from the book or the movie would make absolutely no sense. Harry Potter fans all made their wishes known and a great majority of us prefer two movies over a slashed up version of the book with important plot points taken out. Stop your whining! If you don't like the idea of two movies don't go see them and don't buy the DVD's. I assure you there are enough true Harry Potter fans out there who will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donna Moya, Quartz Hill, Ca

JKR is right, she owns the copyright and she should be able to stop people from copying her work. I hope she wins, but I agree with Mr Black: the Deathly Hallows split into two movies? That's what I call a rip-off....

Iris, Voorburg, The Netherlands

Copyright is so the owner has a say in what is written about hat topic. If Rowling was okay with someone else making an encyclopedia and making all the money, then so be it. This wouldn't be a problem. But since she isn't okay with this situation she gets the rightaway since she has the copyright. If she doesn't want someone to make a lexicon then no one else can make a lexicon. To go to court for such a nonsensical case would be foolish. Obviously Rowling will win. She has the copyright!

Amber, Palm Desert, CA, USA

J.K. Rowling has the right to take the writer lexicon to court. if she didnt it would let writers like myself, then publish stories, that would go along side the Harry potter series.
Copyright is there for this reason, so I hope she wins.
If she loses, well Harry Potter with be ripped of in other ways.
Mind you i thing Warner Brothers will be ripping of us fans, by splitting the last book 'The Deathly Hallows' into two movies.

Adrian Black, Newcastle upon Tyne, England

Courts in the U.S. are duty bound to respect the copyright laws of any other state or country. The books are U.K. based! Period! If the U.K. courts have set precedent that this is an infringement of their laws, and injuction will be ordered. If Ms Rolling files in UK court and it is upheld for her. The US justice system is also duty bound to issue an injuction.

If these people are stupid enough to take on a Billionaire, they will get what they deserve!

When all else fails! She can "Litigate" them out of existance!

And "...that's all I'm going to say about that!"

Norm, Memphis, USA/TN

Rowling has been on record for several years now as wanting to publish an encyclopedia. And mugglenet did cease and desist.
They can't afford any lawsuits and you can bet they proceed very carefully.

Ms. Rowling has been very generous in letting the fans write their versions of her characters and their world; I hope she wins.
She doesn't strike me as mean spirited; Potter is hers and if it comes to a choice, I will buy her authorized encyclopedia over
any other.

Cricket, Newnan, GA

Do the networks have the right to stop TV Guide from making a profit from the listings it provides?Besides,I have always thought that HP was pretty close to that of Tim Hunter in "Books of Magic" series from Vertigo/DC comics.English kid,magical prodigy. Even had an owl and wire rim glasses. I guess the MAGIC word here is the use of"unauthorized". Is it fan support like TV Guide or direct literary ripoff? At least lawyers are kept in the money.

Edwin Sepulveda, San Antonio, TX

To all of you who choose to belittle J.K. Rowling you have got to be kidding or seriously disturbed. As a writer I feel she is completely within her rights to protect her artisitc creation for which she has the copyright. She is not a bully. She is a writer and as such she has the right to defend and protect her copyrighted work. I think you should all get a life and stop defendind those who have to jump on the creation of another write because they don't have enough creativity to come up with their own original ideas. Get over yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donna, Quartz Hill, Ca

Donna Moya, Quartz Hill, Ca

To those of you who think J.K. Rowling is a bully I say you need to get a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As a writer myself I understand the right to protect her copyrighted work. If others can't come up with their own original story, characters and fictional world then maybe they need to find a different line of work rather than blatently steal the creative ideas, etc. of another writer. I am a true Harry Potter fan and a writer. I would never dream of disrespecting a fellow writer and artist. To J.K. Rowling, You go girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donna Moya, Quartz Hill, Ca

Ron: I hope your comment is born of ignorance of the case at hand, not of a complete lack of understanding despite foreknowledge of the issues in question here. JK has been planning an encyclopaedia for charity for quite a while now, one that will have material not in the other books. She did her utmost to make sure this didn't go to court - why do you think the trial's happening in April when this whole business started back in October? She's protecting her copyright, and she has every right to do so.

If SVA and RDR do win this case, what's that going to mean for fandom? Authors will be worried that their work will be taken and illegally used in the same way, so they'll come down hard on fans and fandom. Fanfiction archives? Gone. Unofficial fansites? Done for. Fanzines? Say good-bye. I don't just want JK to win because she's right; I want her to win because of what a loss might - no, will - mean for fandom: the loss of freedoms that many of us hold dear.

Jay, Townsville, Australia

Oh come on. JKR is ticked she didn't think of it. There's money in it and she wants it. Instead of doing battle in court, reach an agreement and get on with your life!

Ron, Milton Keynes, Bucks

This isn't all. Many of the top HP fansites, such as MN, Leaky, etc. have been raking in more than six figures a year in ad revenue. Though initially founded on fandom, their owners have gotten greedy and turned their "fan sites" into full-fledged e-businesses. MuggleNet sold unauthorized HP merchandise and got a cease-and-desist letter from Warner Bros. Leaky is covered in advertising from top to bottom. I believe JKR should also sue these profiteers.

Markus Eriksson, San Francisco, CA,

I notice that JK Rowling and Warner Bros. are perfectly happy to utilize the many Harry Potter fansites to endlessly promote/publicize/market the vast franchise associated with the books and movies. I also note that the recent decision to make the last book into two movies "for artistic reasons" will only serve to increase the profits for JK Rowling and Warner Brothers. I think she's a bully, plain and simple.

Lynn, Philadelphia, USA

Jo is absolutely right.
Every author try to protect his or her intellectual properties.
I'd never let anyone to steal my characters and ideas if I were her.
Jo deserves good - she gave so much pleasure to the world wth those wonderful stories of hers. I hope she will be alright. I support her absolutely.

Mina Jade, Budapest, Hungary

This debate is a no brainer. Joanne is the creator of the magical world and all contained so why should any one else beneift from all her hard work, especially when they will be making money that JKR will be giving to charities. It is completely unfair to presume that people will be able to buy both books but nevertheless, they will not be as fortunate as they may think, because no Harry Potter or JKR fan from the UK would even consider buying the fraud that RDR want to publish. Harry Potter has taken a major part in my life and to think that some people would use her work for their own greedy benefit discusts me! Behind you all the way Jo!

Ashleigh, Sheffield, UK

i am all for people beating the system but in this case, i am all for JKR., Plus Hammer's excuse was well very pathetic just like Peter Petegrew

Brian, cmh, usa

Although I think it was nothing less than the worst kind of rudeness and greed that is motivating RDR in publishing a Lexicon encyclopedia, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with them on this. There's not really a lot you can do to stop "unauthorized guides"; they are in all kinds of fiction. Muggle.net created and published an unauthorized guide, for example.

Brett, Salt Lake City, USA

Steve Vander Ark said on 15 May 2005:
“…fans asking me to publish the Lexicon in book form… Basically, it is illegal to sell a book like that. Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world…. We wouldn’t get away with it, though, since Neil Blair, her solicitor, is very quick to defend his illustrious client in things like this.”

Apparently he has forgotten he said this despite it being on record. After the series was finished the profit motive apparently overrode any other concerns. That, and a small publishing house that saw an opportunity to make big bucks. They intent to publish a series of Steve's books and the publicity from this case will help their cause, which I'm guessing is exactly what they intended all along.

abi adam, london, uk

i don't think anyone that is a REAL harry potter fan will read that lexicon after reading this text. Much better to wait for Rowling's lexicon to come out

simen, narbuvoll, Norway

Normally I'd say more power to pirates, but she's right, it's not like she's a greedy scum bag hording the money for herself. She's constantly putting out things to help towards charity, and I'd rather buy something that is official, reputable, and helping people.

Ren, Waxahachie,

For goodness sake let there be a little flexibility JK !!!!

Ian Payne, WALSALL,

Any true fan will wait for the official version rather than some fanzine rip-off- everyone knows that JKR has said that her encylopaedia will contain back stories and information not contained in the published books as well as a guide to what is already there. Any fan's version can only be purely lifted from the book or mere speculation and what true fan would be satisified with that at the end of the day?

Lyndsey, edinburgh,

Who says that Jo frequently used the Lexicon? Her? Or SVA? So far the only people I've heard say it are on SVA's side and that's the first I've heard of it.

Steve Vander Ark has grown an enormous ego by being a "big name fan." Though, even he knew something like this would happen as he asked to be idemified (free from lawsuit) in his contract and instead have RDR take the brunt. That is a very unusual action in publishing. As is his issuement of 500 free author copies. Most books like this only get 500 copies published of a first issue (like the first printing of Philosopher's Stone from Bloomsbury).

This all boils down to copyright law and whether or not the Lexibook falls under fair use. It does not. Steve would also do well to keep his mouth shut about the case and stop giving interviews to fanzines and fansites and talking about it on his own site. His lawyers are inept if they continue to allow him to do so. Steve's just bitter Jo refused his request to help her write herown

Katie, Chattanooga, TN

A point to consider before embracing free culture and open access; try creating something from nothing using your own graft and effort, then maybe perhaps the 'Free' in one's 'free culture' will have currency.

We create to innovate, for pleasure, for profit, for art's sake; who has the right to define my creative motivations?
More to the point, who would want to go into business as a writer to have their works (allegedly) distributed for free by people they don't know, and for causes unclear or unagreeable?

Martyn, Camberley,

JKR is completely in the right here, in my opinion. JKR approved of a

FREE online website. It is manifestly different to then take that and try

to publish for profit.

Sarah is wrong when she states that "has been using the online Harry

Potter Lexicon during the process of writing the last of her books,", JKR

only indicated to using it a handful of times years ago when she was on a

visit to the USA and didn't want to go into a bookstore and buy her own

books.

I strongly disagree with Sarah about free culture. The purpose of

copyright is in fact to encourage the creation of art and work. By

allowing a {writer, artist, musician, etc} to at least have a chance of

making a living from their work, they encourage the creation of said

work. It should be remember that success like that of JKR or George Lucas

is the exception rather than the rule.

Jeleyan, Guatemala City,

I think that JKR is complaetly right in proctecting her rights to the world of harry potter. she created the world so she has the right to say wether or not the world can be used by an outsider. and if she is going to create a Lexicon of the world of HP she should be able to stop others from writing a different encyclopedia. Also ithink people would rather read a Lexicon written by JKR than some outsider

Iggy, Waitsburg, United State/ WA

This is what really makes me sick, is that people frown on fan creations as illegal and unauthorized derivative works, however, fan works allow space for fans to write themselves into a fictional universe, to feel closer to their passions and their idols. JKR has been using the online Harry Potter Lexicon during the process of writing the last of her books, but now that the Lexicon is moving from the virtual domain to the physical, it poses a real physical threat and she has suddenly denounced it. Society needs to start thinking about producing a free culture in which all cultural products are open-access and belong to everyone. It is counter-productive to deny the public the ability to engage with products collectively owned.

Sarah Oakey, Adelaide, South Australia

I support J K Rowling completely. Nobody has the right to capitalize on her creativity without her permission. I remember reading about how Charles Dickens was treated so unfairly by American publishers, who printed his works without compensation. As Americans, we should not want another black eye like that one.

John W. Blackwelder, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA