The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 176516

 
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Goblins' rights aside, Griphook *is* wrong--as in mistaken--about 
the
> ownership of the Sword of Gryffindor. It was made by a long-dead
> goblin for Godric Gryffindor, who paid a large amount of gold for 
it.
> Griphook's wanting it back for the gobins in general makes no sense.
> What are they going to do with it, keep it in Gringotts? That won't
> work because it's enchanted to come out of the Sorting Hat for any
> Gryffindor who needs it. (Of course, in the two instances we've 
seen,
> the Sorting Hat *happened* to be right there, delivered by Fawkes in
> the one instance and summoned by Voldemort himself in the other.
> Complicated logistics, part of the "help will always come at 
Hogwarts
> to those who ask for it" idea, I suppose.)
> 
> At any rate, as I see it, goblin-made swords, armor, tiaras, etc., 
do
> belong to the wizards who paid for them, just as my car belongs to 
me
> and not to the Ford workers who manufactured it. It may be a "human"
> idea of ownership, but it makes much more sense than returning a 
sword
> or tiara or whatever to the goblin who made it on the death of the
> wizard who *bought*, not *leased* it. Should wands made by 
Ollivander
> return to him on the death of the wizard who made them? *He* doesn't
> expect that to happpen. Neither, IMO, should the goblins.
> 
> With regard to employment opportunities, the right to carry wand
> (which they don't need), and their right to live in peace, Griphook
> and the goblins have more legitimate grievances, but Griphook's idea
> that he was retrieving goblin property by seizing the Sword of
> Gryffindor (willed to Harry by DD, who was presumably its legitimate
> owner as headmaster of Hogwarts, and made available to Harry and Ron
> by another headmaster, Severus Snape, who makes sure that the sword 
is
> retrieved under circumstances involving valor and chivalry as 
required
> by its internal magic) is, IMO, just absurd. An artifact can't 
belong
> to a group. The only goblin with a hint of a legitimate claim would 
be
> a descendant of the original maker, and even then the descendant or
> heir of the original buyer would have a better claim. 
> 
> Carol, who does not consider her legally purchased copy of DH to
> belong to JK Rowling even though Rowling created it, property rights
> being different from copyright protection
>

Hickengruendler:

I completely agree with this. After reading this thread, I tried 
seeing it from the Goblins' point of view, but I simply can't. I 
admit that part of the reason might be, that the Wizard's idea of 
property in this case basically is the same as ours, and I'm sinply 
raised that way, but the Goblins' claim make no sense to me, 
particularly Griphook's. For me, it is as if some German had sold a 
car to an American some eighty years ago, and now I want to have the 
Oldtimer, because I'm a German as well. That's just odd.

Also, to me it just reads as if the Goblins want both, the gold and 
the valuable object, it was paid for, and that doesn't exactly endear 
me to them. I do see, that Griphook was simply raised with different 
values, but I simply cannot sympathise with him here.