[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by omk3

It's still illegal, Harry, but legal doesn't necessarily mean right or even reasonable. It's certainly ethically fine in my book.

It might not be illegal. One of the fascinating bits of commentary in the recent Sony v Tenenbaum ruling was the judge saying:

the Court was prepared to consider a more expansive fair use argument than other courts have credited — perhaps one supported by facts specific to this individual and this unique period of rapid technological change. For example, file sharing for the purposes of sampling music prior to purchase or space-shifting to store purchased music more efficiently might offer a compelling case for fair use. Likewise, a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense.

(Bolding added.) So we've got a ruling where a judge said, if there's no digital version available, it might be okay to make & distribute one. Rowling's said she never intends to allow ebooks--she's declined to exploit that market, and that doesn't give her the right to prevent it.

From the Gone With the Wind/The Wind Done Gone case, Marcus' concurring opinion:

The law grants copyright holders a powerful monopoly in their expressive works. It should not also afford them windfall damages for the publication of the sorts of works that they themselves would never publish, or worse, grant them a power of indirect censorship.