Harry Potter Case Illustrates Blurry Line in Copyright Liability

April 21, 2008

  • April 22, 2008 at 7:27 am
    Chuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The only reason this case exists is because of the enormous popularity of the books and the complexity of following the varied characters. No starving artists here. The existence of the blog was a recognized benefit and was applauded. If it was theft, why was it so accepted by those who actually benefitted. It is only when the blog was to be made available in a different form that it became a problem. Granted the first is accepted and the second controlled by long standing laws, but doesn’t the hypocracy of the situation matter for anything. Perhaps the court will do equity.

  • April 22, 2008 at 5:38 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If she weren’t already wealthy, and all other things remained the same, would people still think she was out of line with her suit?

    The money made from her books should be protected because it isn’t just JK’s wallet in question. People who work for her and work for the publisher have an interest in protecting the copyrights, too.

    I would be the first person to tell someone wealthy to go cry in their mansion if life is so frickin bad. But in this case, I think it’s fair for an author to say “no, you can’t earn a living off of my intellectual property without my permission”.

    Just because this sort of “theft” has become easier in the internet age doesn’t make it acceptable.

    Stealing from a rich person is just as wrong as stealing from a starving artist, in my opinion.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*