Rowling wins copyright infringement case

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by axel77

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.

Fair enough; I chose my words badly. To clarify: she didn't attempt to have them stopped, because, as you said, they were fair use. The Lexicon was not.

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).

I think you have that backwards; the publishers would probably love to put the Potter books out as e-books (and I'd love to buy them) but JKR doesn't allow it. They're bending to her will--and it's very much her right. They are her property and she chooses how to license them. I don't agree with her choices, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS her choice, whether the fans like it or not. She owns Harry Potter. We don't.

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.

But several people in this thread referred to her as greedy and wanting to keep all the money to be made from the Lexicon (which isn't as much as a Potter encyclopedia written by JKR herself), and that's simply not true, which was my point. Her publisher(s) are businesses, and the purpose of a business is to make a profit, so it's illogical to fault them for it.

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.

I think JKR's opinion toward e-books is a separate issue from the "worth" of the Lexicon. It wasn't "worth less" because it was electronic. The Lexicon website still violated her copyright, but because no one was making (much) money from it, she ignored it (they really couldn't do much about it anyway). She knew that the value of the Lexicon site to the fans was not monetary. When it was attempted to make a profit by a business (see what I said above about the purpose of business), she (and the WB) stepped in; and even then, attempted to get information about it and resolve the situation without legal intervention, until the publisher forced the issue.

Thing is, JKR doesn't want e-books of her novels, but they're out there anyway. At least if she allowed legal versions, she'd have some control over the product. The illegal products, quite frankly, stink. I'd love to have really well-designed e-books of the Potter books, and would happily pay for them, though I've paid for all of the books in hardback already. Her viewpoint about e-books is, in my opinion, short-sighted and a bit Luddite-ish and makes me extremely impatient, but she's within her rights to hold it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

The Lexicon website still violated her copyright

It did? As far as I know, nothing in the recent case said anything about the website. The ruling was just about the book. The content on the website is not the same as the content in the book.

Thing is, JKR doesn't want e-books of her novels, but they're out there anyway. At least if she allowed legal versions, she'd have some control over the product. The illegal products, quite frankly, stink. I'd love to have really well-designed e-books of the Potter books, and would happily pay for them, though I've paid for all of the books in hardback already. Her viewpoint about e-books is, in my opinion, short-sighted and a bit Luddite-ish and makes me extremely impatient, but she's within her rights to hold it.

I'm with you there. Although, legal ebook doesn't necessarily mean high quality. Some of the worst ebooks I've seen with regards to scanning errors have been legally purchased ones.

[astrodad]

Thing is, JKR doesn't want e-books of her novels, but they're out there anyway. At least if she allowed legal versions, she'd have some control over the product. The illegal products, quite frankly, stink. I'd love to have really well-designed e-books of the Potter books, and would happily pay for them, though I've paid for all of the books in hardback already.

I'm with you there, pal!

[Robotech_Master]

Incidentally, the illicit e-books get a brief mention in the decision—"unauthorized electronic copies of Rowling’s works, obtained by improperly scanning each of those works."

I would be inclined to reply that, no, they must have properly scanned them, because improperly scanned copies would not be legible at all!

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It did? As far as I know, nothing in the recent case said anything about the website. The ruling was just about the book. The content on the website is not the same as the content in the book.

I am guilty of imprecision. I believe there was some C&P going on at the website, too, so technically it copied JKR's books. But since it was free to access, I think it falls under fair use.

[JeffElkins]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

But since it was free to access, I think it falls under fair use.

Just because you're not charging doesn't mean you can legally re-distribute copywritten material. In the case of the website, the copywritten materials owner had given it her imprimatur - that was their protection.

[Shaggy]

Also, the main reason that the book ran into trouble was because most of the material on it was copied from Rowling. There is a much higher percentage of "original/creative" content on the website, as opposed to direct quotes. So it should have been less likely to fail "fair use" based on that test.

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by JeffElkins

This Ars Technica article is good:



I side with Orson Scott Card. Like him, I've found Rowling to be a disappointment in her post-Harry career; first the Dumbledore debacle, now this.

I agree. I think Rowling was a one trick pony and is now afraid of people encroaching in on that trick. She needs to write something else and move on. Harry Potter is finished. Move on.

[astra]

I had no doubts about who is going to win. She is so rich.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

I agree. I think Rowling was a one trick pony and is now afraid of people encroaching in on that trick. She needs to write something else and move on. Harry Potter is finished. Move on.

Actually, she doesn't. She's milked that cow for all it was worth (and then some), but let's be fair, people would have crucified her for not writing and ending.

She's been able to stop for years, let's just let her do so...

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by Trenien

Actually, she doesn't. She's milked that cow for all it was worth (and then some), but let's be fair, people would have crucified her for not writing and ending.

She's been able to stop for years, let's just let her do so...

But she did write an ending and now it's over and she can't move on. The only way she stays in the news is with lawsuits like this. There are still 3 more HP films, anyway. If this were actually an egregious breach of copyright (if the guy had written his own Harry Potter book, for instance), then I could understand. But it's a damn reference book.

[elena]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

She needs to write something else and move on. Harry Potter is finished. Move on.

it's not finished for me.. maybe Harry's story is over, but she still must write Hogwards: a history


seriously, she is writing something else at the moment. Should be a book for children though, alas.

[astra]

Originally Posted by elena

it's not finished for me.. maybe Harry's story is over

I opened up a few tabs at once and when I started to read this post, for a moment, I got lost. I thought why HarryT's story is over?!?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by elena

it's not finished for me.. maybe Harry's story is over, but she still must write Hogwards: a history

What would be the point? We know only one person would ever read it.

In addition to the book for a younger audience that we know she's working on, she's also talked about writing fiction for adults. She'll move on from this eventually. Remember, it wasn't entirely her decision to sue in this case-- WB at least was also involved.

I'm reminded of all the controversy about Salman Rushdie, and he's actually gone on to write other significant books since his bit of notoriety.

Regarding the Dumbledore controversy, I thought about this for several days since reading the above comment about her "lack of courage" in not making it more clear within the books, and of course I don't know what's going on in her head any more than the rest of us, but I suspect her point was that she didn't write Dumbledore as "obviously" gay because it doesn't matter. Just as she never mentions the race of any of her characters (the note about Dean Thomas being black was added for the American version), she doesn't specifically mention the sexual orientation of any of her characters, because it's not relevant to the plot. Which I think is a very mature approach, myself.

I wouldn't defend her on everything-- I still think it's very narrow-minded and short-sighted of her to prohibit ebook versions-- but I think she's rather a victim of the spotlight at this point. Everything she does gets examined, dissected, and criticized. I'm more inclined to enjoy the books as what they are, and move on to reading new material now that they're done.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'm reminded of all the controversy about Salman Rushdie, and he's actually gone on to write other significant books since his bit of notoriety.

Ah, but Rushdie isn't a millionaire (or at least he wasn't at the time).