Rufus Sewell Interview – Who Is Zen Rufus Sewell – The Holiday – MO and Interview Masterpiece Mystery! zutaskim says: . One Heck Of A Weekend http://t.co/SWp831z rufus sewell
Continue reading …Paul Allen, who claimed a Harry Potter plot was lifted from another book, failed to meet a court payment deadline A claim that JK Rowling lifted the plot of one of her Harry Potter books from the work of another writer has been struck out after the claimant failed to meet a deadline for paying the first instalment of £1.5m into court as security for costs. The court of appeal ordered last week that the claimant, Paul Allen, trustee of the estate of Adrian Jacobs, who died in 1997, should pay the first part of the money into court by 4pm on Friday last week, or the case would be struck out. The claim has now failed as no payment was made. The move marks the end of a bitterly fought battle in which Rowling was accused of having lifted the plot of the fourth book in the series – Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – from Jacobs’s book, Willy the Wizard. She and her publisher, Bloomsbury, had faced a demand for more than A$1bn (£659m) in damages. Solicitor David Hooper, a partner with the law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, which represented Bloomsbury, said: “They have not paid the money into court. “The whole thing is a scandal – it has been going on for seven years. It was an absolutely ludicrous case.” The claimants had spent well over £1m, he said. Rowling has described the claim that her book was copied from Willy the Wizard as “not only unfounded but absurd”, and said she had never even seen the book until Allen’s claim was launched in 2004. Her solicitor, Gideon Benaim, a partner at Schillings, said: “An enormous amount of time has been wasted having to defend against this claim, when it was quite obvious to us from the outset that it had no chance of success. “As the judge noted, those behind the claim set about publicising the case with a view to exerting pressure and promoting their ‘book’. Quite how they ever thought that we would succumb to pressure indicates a complete lack of understanding on their part. We are glad that the substantive action is now at an end.” Mr Justice Kitchin ordered the payment into court in March, saying that Allen should pay security for 65% of the costs faced by Rowling and her publisher, Bloomsbury. There were to be three staged payments – the first, of £322,691 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £571,613 for Rowling’s costs, to be made by 21 April; the second, £24,650 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £178,441 for Rowling’s costs, to follow by 5 August; and the final payments, of £129,373 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £318,975 for Rowling’s, to be made by 11 November. The court of appeal rejected the appeal against that decision last Thursday, saying the first payment should be made by 4pm on Friday or the case would be struck out. The same claim had already been comprehensively rejected in the US, where a judge in the Manhattan-based US district court for the southern district of New York said that “the contrast between the total concept and feel of the works is so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity”. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was 734 pages long while the Willy the Wizard book consisted of just 16 pages of text, the judge said. He added that the Willy the Wizard book was “entirely devoid of a moral message or intellectual depth”, in contrast to Goblet of Fire, a cumulative work in which one scene built on another, the storyline was highly developed and complex, and there was “a highly developed moral core” and overarching messages were conveyed through the plot. Mr Justice Kitchin, sitting in the chancery division of the high court, had ordered the security for costs payment after having rejected an application by Rowling and Bloomsbury for summary judgment, although he thought the plagiarism claim had an “improbable” chance of success. But he also made it clear that he was unhappy with the way the litigation was being conducted, and the behaviour of Allen and people associated with him. Allen, he said, was a nominal claimant – he was in truth suing for the benefit of another. But the evidence from Allen, a property developer, about the means available to him and those supporting him, was “far from full or candid”. There were also indications of a want of good faith on the part of Allen and those associated with him, and those behind the claim “have also engaged in what I think the defendants fairly describe as thinly veiled threats to publicise the allegation that Ms Rowling has engaged in plagiarism”. David Markson, literary agent for the Jacobs estate, and his brother, Max Markson, a public relations executive in Australia, had tried to pressure Rowling into a settlement and had warned that failure to settle the claim would lead to “unwelcome publicity”, the judge said. Harry Potter JK Rowling guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Paul Allen, who claimed a Harry Potter plot was lifted from another book, failed to meet a court payment deadline A claim that JK Rowling lifted the plot of one of her Harry Potter books from the work of another writer has been struck out after the claimant failed to meet a deadline for paying the first instalment of £1.5m into court as security for costs. The court of appeal ordered last week that the claimant, Paul Allen, trustee of the estate of Adrian Jacobs, who died in 1997, should pay the first part of the money into court by 4pm on Friday last week, or the case would be struck out. The claim has now failed as no payment was made. The move marks the end of a bitterly fought battle in which Rowling was accused of having lifted the plot of the fourth book in the series – Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – from Jacobs’s book, Willy the Wizard. She and her publisher, Bloomsbury, had faced a demand for more than A$1bn (£659m) in damages. Solicitor David Hooper, a partner with the law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, which represented Bloomsbury, said: “They have not paid the money into court. “The whole thing is a scandal – it has been going on for seven years. It was an absolutely ludicrous case.” The claimants had spent well over £1m, he said. Rowling has described the claim that her book was copied from Willy the Wizard as “not only unfounded but absurd”, and said she had never even seen the book until Allen’s claim was launched in 2004. Her solicitor, Gideon Benaim, a partner at Schillings, said: “An enormous amount of time has been wasted having to defend against this claim, when it was quite obvious to us from the outset that it had no chance of success. “As the judge noted, those behind the claim set about publicising the case with a view to exerting pressure and promoting their ‘book’. Quite how they ever thought that we would succumb to pressure indicates a complete lack of understanding on their part. We are glad that the substantive action is now at an end.” Mr Justice Kitchin ordered the payment into court in March, saying that Allen should pay security for 65% of the costs faced by Rowling and her publisher, Bloomsbury. There were to be three staged payments – the first, of £322,691 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £571,613 for Rowling’s costs, to be made by 21 April; the second, £24,650 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £178,441 for Rowling’s costs, to follow by 5 August; and the final payments, of £129,373 for Bloomsbury’s costs and £318,975 for Rowling’s, to be made by 11 November. The court of appeal rejected the appeal against that decision last Thursday, saying the first payment should be made by 4pm on Friday or the case would be struck out. The same claim had already been comprehensively rejected in the US, where a judge in the Manhattan-based US district court for the southern district of New York said that “the contrast between the total concept and feel of the works is so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity”. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was 734 pages long while the Willy the Wizard book consisted of just 16 pages of text, the judge said. He added that the Willy the Wizard book was “entirely devoid of a moral message or intellectual depth”, in contrast to Goblet of Fire, a cumulative work in which one scene built on another, the storyline was highly developed and complex, and there was “a highly developed moral core” and overarching messages were conveyed through the plot. Mr Justice Kitchin, sitting in the chancery division of the high court, had ordered the security for costs payment after having rejected an application by Rowling and Bloomsbury for summary judgment, although he thought the plagiarism claim had an “improbable” chance of success. But he also made it clear that he was unhappy with the way the litigation was being conducted, and the behaviour of Allen and people associated with him. Allen, he said, was a nominal claimant – he was in truth suing for the benefit of another. But the evidence from Allen, a property developer, about the means available to him and those supporting him, was “far from full or candid”. There were also indications of a want of good faith on the part of Allen and those associated with him, and those behind the claim “have also engaged in what I think the defendants fairly describe as thinly veiled threats to publicise the allegation that Ms Rowling has engaged in plagiarism”. David Markson, literary agent for the Jacobs estate, and his brother, Max Markson, a public relations executive in Australia, had tried to pressure Rowling into a settlement and had warned that failure to settle the claim would lead to “unwelcome publicity”, the judge said. Harry Potter JK Rowling guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The fake taxi used by the Canadian version of the reality TV show Cash Cab killed a 61-year-old man as a producer was returning the vehicle to a storage lot after filming, reports the Vancouver Sun . There were no witnesses, but the “taxi” is now being held by Vancouver police…
Continue reading …One month ago, President Obama blamed the sluggish economy on technologies like ATMs and self-service kiosks, extremely underestimating the value Americans find in innovation. To prove how vital new technology is to the economy, Southern Methodist University professor Michael Cox asked his students how much money they would have to be paid to give up the internet for the rest of their lives, but found few takers to his proposal. Do you think you could be paid to give up the internet forever? Check out a video produced by the free market group the Fund for American Studies after the break, and let us know what you think in the comments. Beyond giving up the internet, the video also questions how much people are willing to pay for new technological devices. Computers once cost millions of dollars, cell phones cost thousands, and cameras cost hundreds, but their prices have all dramatically fallen since their invention due to competition to create the best, most cost-efficient products. Because of what the video explains as a free market system, the wealthy buy new products first at their peak prices. After glitches are ironed out and production costs are lowered, the products gradually become affordable to an increasingly wider audience. The market that allows for this technological growth is also a driving economic force. As Ted Balaker at Big Government explains , About a century ago roughly 40 percent of Americans worked on the farm, but technology–from tractors to new irrigation techniques–has made agriculture vastly more efficient. Today less than 1 percent of us works on the farm. But the fact that we can feed far more people with far fewer workers is progress. Likewise, if food magically appeared in our refrigerators, it would be tough on the remaining agriculture workers, but free food would be one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Technology allows us to do more with fewer workers, and that efficiency allows the folks who would have been farmers or travel agents to get to work meeting society’s other needs and wants by, for instance, creating software. Today America is home to more than a million software engineers. These and countless other jobs were “created” because the market served the needs and wants of consumers. Technology may not create as many jobs as we’d like as quickly as we’d like, but as an engine of growth it’s much more effective than a big blast of government spending. And when Obama’s own economists admit that each job the stimulus “created or saved” cost taxpayers $278,000, it’s clear that the White House’s tweeting technocrats are in no position to criticize efficiency. How much would you have to be paid to give up the internet forever?
Continue reading …DaveLaFontaine says: Roger Ailes' “brain room” phone-hacking operation at Fox News http://bit.ly/qoj5cf wondering when the RICO prosecution launches
Continue reading …PeterBreitholtz says: Dick Durbin Default DeMint Debt Deficit Deadline and Da Hood @meetthepress @davidgregory NOW! on @NBC
Continue reading …Looks like someone took the Droid 3 , slapped a new name on it, and shipped it north to our friends in Canada, but added one neat twist — it’s now rocking an extra “G.” Officially known as the XT860 4G, Bell’s version of Motorola’s QWERTY slider comes packed with a HSPA+ radio that can handle the 850MHz, 1900MHz, and 2100MHz bands. That means not only can our ice-sweeping neighbors enjoy blazing fast mobile data, but they can roam the globe without sacrificing their deliciously speedy connection. Otherwise, you’re looking at the same 4-inch, dual-core Gingerbread device that just launched here in the states. For the moment though, price and availability are still up in the syrup-scented air. Continue reading Motorola XT860 4G is the Droid 3′s curling loving cousin for Bell Motorola XT860 4G is the Droid 3′s curling loving cousin for Bell originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:50:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Forget Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis . The latest hot date for the Marine Corps ball could be Betty White. Sgt. Ray Lewis posted a YouTube video appealing to the 90-year-old actress to accompany him to the big fete in Washington in November. “She’s funny, she’s sweet, she’s mature, she’s the…
Continue reading …A little more than a year ago, I attended the AmericaSpeaks town hall, which was billed as an opportunity for Americans to have their say in the America’s budget decisions. I was so impressed by how informed and assertive my fellow Americans were about standing up for other people, and that’s what I wrote. What I didn’t say was how curious I was about how and why the event was put together. Yes, I knew that Pete Peterson had funded it, but who was pushing it? Who was this AmericaSpeaks group, anyway? I talked to a knowledgeable insider (someone who’d worked on the issue for decades), and he told me AmericaSpeaks didn’t initiate the project – it came from the White House. In fact, he told me, Austen Goolsbee had been tasked by the White House with bringing public opinion in line with supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare. I didn’t write about it then because my source wasn’t willing to go on the record. But under the current circumstances, I thought I’d tell readers, and remind you all to take what you hear about the need to cut these programs with a very large grain of salt . And by the way? People’s opinions on what to cut haven’t changed! For the first time in a long time, I might have some faith in America. Because no matter how many times the facilitators of this event (which was funded heavily by Pete Peterson, the conservative billionaire who wants to cut Social Security ) tried to steer us toward cutting Social Security and Medicare , the 3500 or so people who took part in this national town hall weren’t buying it. Sure, there were Fox News junkies here and there, and some cautious, low-information voters who kinda-sorta disagreed, but the majority who attended seemed to have their own ideas about how to solve the deficit “problem.” You know what most of them wanted to do? Soak the rich — and cut defense spending. (Are you listening, President Obama?) I thought maybe it was just my table, but when they tabulated the results, it was pretty much the same throughout the crowded ballroom of several hundred attendees. (Whew!) And the national tabulation from the 19 cities across the country showed pretty similiar results. In fact, the only places in which it varied from a progressive agenda were on more complex, less familiar topics like the tax deductions businesses take to keep jobs in this country. (“They leave anyway!” my tablemates exclaimed.)That, in spite of a pretty sophisticated, full-scale marketing push. When you arrived, you were given a glossy information packet and asked to fill out a questionnaire about core values. Now, clearly this approach had been focus-grouped, because the common theme seized on by the moderators was our desire to leave a better world for the next generation. (Apparently they thought this would translate to a spirit of self-sacrifice. Hah!) When we talked about the economic recovery, I said the deficit had nothing to do with it. “It’s only a ‘crisis’ when the GOP is out of power and they want to cut entitlements,” I said. “The top economists are all saying you don’t worry about the deficit in a major recession, so why would we even accept this premise?” (I think I made our facilitator nervous. So did the guy who said he was worried about a double-dip recession.) It was also a happy moment when we pointed out that they forgot to include the possibility of cutting the estate tax in their budget estimates. That, and the loud snickers throughout the room when our hosts showed a video starring Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg .) Even more heartening, though, was how carefully people looked at the questions. You know what else they said? They’d rather see no cuts at all in any social programs than give Congress the go-ahead to slash them. They don’t trust them to look out for the interests of the vulnerable over the corporate interests. (Hell, one guy at my table even quoted Karl Marx ! “Shouldn’t matter who said it if it’s a good idea,” he said.) You know what everyone said they supported instead of Medicare cuts? Medicare for all! In fact, people wanted to spend more money on all social programs! About the only real non-progressive moment came when a couple of the older participants said they thought they could support raising the age at which you got full Social Security benefits. “Wait a minute,” I said. “That’s actually a benefit cut. If you paid in for all those years expecting to get that, you can’t turn around and take it away.” They hadn’t thought of that. We talked about personal responsibility vs. government care, but agreed we just didn’t trust Congress to make those decisions.The facilitator kept saying things like, “Are you keeping in mind future generations, and the young people who aren’t present here today? Are you voting for their interests as well?” Several of us pointed out that a single-payer system was best for their interests – that it would stimulate the economy and generate more jobs. (Although by the time the sentiment was shown on the conference screen, it said “single-payer option in our healthcare system” or something similarly convoluted. Which, you know, kind of defeats the purpose of single-payer and kills the economic benefits. But whatever!) One of the guys at my table went off on a rant about Social Security “running out because the politicians stole the money.”“Hold on, Social Security is not running out,” I said. “It’s completely funded through 2036, and even if we didn’t do a thing, it would still pay out 80% of the benefits. All we have to do is raise the cap on earnings and raise the payroll tax by one percent, and we’d be fine.” (I was in sales. I’m pretty persuasive. Come to think of it, why aren’t progressives holding town hall meetings on Social Security?) Anyway, there were many, many insidious attempts to reframe the debate. But people were pushing back on just about everything – in the nicest, most polite way. But they definitely pushed back. Despite the little hints from the emcee about “denial” and “making hard choices,” the attendees held their ground. And politicians did not get the go-ahead signal to go anywhere near Social Security. Frankly, I was surprised. But in a good way! Now we’ll see just how AmericaSpeaks frames the results. But I want to tell you: Today, Americans did us proud. I hope they keep their guards up.Because this is only the beginning. Obviously, the plan is to wear down our resistance with more clever infomercials like this one. As predicted, it was only the beginning. But understand: This was a long-term plan, one we shouldn’t let the powers that be shove down our throats under the pretext of solving a crisis.
Continue reading …