View Single Post
Old 09-09-2008, 12:00 PM   #10
delphidb96
Wizard
delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.delphidb96 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,000
Karma: 300001
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Citrus Heights, California
Device: TWO Kindle 2s, one each Bookeen Cybook Gen3, Sony PRS-500, Axim X51V
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
I think personally that this is the correct result in this particular case, given that (I believe) something over 90% of the content of this book consisted of material "lifted" directly from the HP books. Limited quoting for academic purposes is "fair use", but this clearly isn't - it appears to have been a rather blatent attempt by someone to commercially profit from Ms. Rowling's work.
I disagree. The court made a *bad* decision and this puts all "derivative" works based upon extracting information and putting it in a database form. Think of all the Prima gaming guides for games like Diablo and Warcraft.

Nope, it was a clear case of stupid greed (Rowling) and idiocy (the court) winning over justice.

Derek
delphidb96 is offline   Reply With Quote