Quote:
Originally Posted by MaggieScratch
She has certainly permitted other, similar books that had more original content or did a better job of paraphrasing.
|
Actually if you read the judge words, these werent't hers to "permit" to start with. If other similar books contain more original content and a better job of paraphrasing, they would be legal, if JKR likes it or not. This book just happens to be judged to have stepped a leap to far over they gray area that is the legal line.
Also note about the charity things. She acts in my very humble oppinion much as a slave to the publishers desire (see for example e-books). That her earnings of this books are going to charity is a good thing, but it by far does not mean that he winning charge (how ever you call that term professionally) of the publisher goes into the same channels, her publisher AFAIK happily takes the money as gains of her charity books, which is likely to be at least the same amount she would get.
And as said, behind this story still flies the impression of online or electronic media to be of far less value, so nobody cared as long it wasn't paper, which is IMHO a loss for us. Yeah yeah, before you post, I know the online website had in difference to that lexicion more original content, and was organised more altruisticly, but still that emotion of worthlessness of electronic media IMHO still is carried with this around.