$100 million?
 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/927941.asp

$100 million? Gee..I not a big fan of Rowling as a person.

damn!!! She needs to calm down! It's not like that will affect sales or anything.

She must have Dan Wasson on her advising team.

Ugghh. That's this week. Tomorrow night I will have to go with my wife to Barnes and Noble at 9:30 for the pre-party at which she will drink butter beer and make a golden snitch. Festivities will continue until midnight when she will procede to trample dozens of small children to get her grubby little paws on a copy of the book. All the while, I will be hiding in the corner of the store with a stack of fantasy football previews or history books.

The next day, we have two cookouts to attend, one at her boss's house and one at my mother's, so she has already told me not to plan on anything for all day Sunday as it will be Harry Potter reading day.

What the hell scooper, are you married to a 14 year old?

Harry Potter is one of those things that is just too insanely popular that I have to vow never to read/watch/listen to it. I forget what other examples of this there are, but this is one of them.

She is suing for $100 million because she can. You sue for the maximum and let it go down from there. Doesn't that make sense to anyone? When you are selling something, don't you start on the high end of what you expect to be able to get?

Sometimes I think so, yes.

I've read the books. They are not bad, and well written. She has a gift for detailed decription. When they made the movies, they looked exactly like I pictured everything from the books.

The Mrs., however, is just a bit too excited about this.

That post was assinine and a waste of my time. I am suing you for $.25 in retribution.

What the hell is wrong with this world when there are reports on our exact troop locations while they're involved in active combat, though a newspaper publishes a preview of a book, which it seems they obtained quite legally by the way, and they're getting sue for $100 million

Also, the author of these books seems a little, how you say, nuts? I'd read a short news story about her as I was browsing the 'net the other night about how she was in tears because she killed off one of the characters in her book. I doubt anyone here, well maybe with the exception of Shorty, sheds a tear when they're forced to cut a player in FOF due to salary cap circumstances, and that's something that actually matters.

Yawn. Obtaining a book legally does not mean I get to publish any of it, when everyone was under specific legal conditions to not publish anything before its release.

Blame the government for not prosecuting the media. Just because they fail to prosecute those things does not mean the news media is free to do as they damn well please.

Right on, guys. :rolleyes: Fight the power...or whatever it is you are really bitching about.

I don't think they actually published a portion of the book, they just published a preview about what is in the book without providing any excerpts.

If you read the article it states they printed two pages of the book that are legible. I would be pissed too. The possiblity for some loss of sales does exists no matter how small.

Yes, those people who just like to read the first two pages of the books that they buy :)

(I know, if the book's first two pages were sufficiently horrible...)

It has less to do with actual damages, as it does the fact that they were under an order to not publish anything. If you are under legal order to not do something, and you do it anyway, then the matter goes to court. That's the way it works in a society of laws. Now a Judge decides if it is justified or not.

I'll sell you my '92 Plymouth Sundance. Does $75,000 sound good?

The Daily News was under a legal order? Where in the article does it state this? The only thing I see was that retailers had signed agreements not to put the book on sale early.

Now I will say that the Daily News probably should have printed two legible pages of the book.

Michael Jordan?
Tiger Woods?
Nike?
Reality Shows?
Mick Vick?
others?

Actually as much as I purposely shun hype and insanely popular things, Harry Potter seems to be the only exception for I have enjoyed the movies/books (at least the first two).

:)

Well, I've pretty much ignored the reality shows (besides some episodes of the first 'Bachelor'), but not because fo their popularity. I mainly do this with movies, but I can't recall any at the moment, besides maybe Forrest Gump (which I eventually caved in and watched).

I know you guys are not slamming the future Mrs. Detroit_fan!! cause' if you are i'm gonna be openin' a big-o-can of whup butt on you all!