Interesting dilemma
Author J.K. Rowling is suing the publisher of an encyclopedia based on her blockbuster "Harry Potter" series of children's books. She says she had planned her own reference guide cataloguing the characters and events in the series.
The encyclopedia in question will be based on (if not directly copied from) an existing website, the Harry Potter Lexicon.
So, since the book-to-be sort of already exists, does Rowling have the power to stop it from being published in dead-tree format? How could the book "constitute a wholesale theft of 17 years of hard work" if the website it's based on didn't?
It's not just about the money -- the HPLexicon website sells advertising, so one could argue that it has already been earning revenue at Rowling's expense.
I'm a big champion of copyright and usually firmly in any author's corner. But this is an unusual case, and I'm not sure whose argument I support.
What do you think?
The encyclopedia in question will be based on (if not directly copied from) an existing website, the Harry Potter Lexicon.
So, since the book-to-be sort of already exists, does Rowling have the power to stop it from being published in dead-tree format? How could the book "constitute a wholesale theft of 17 years of hard work" if the website it's based on didn't?
It's not just about the money -- the HPLexicon website sells advertising, so one could argue that it has already been earning revenue at Rowling's expense.
I'm a big champion of copyright and usually firmly in any author's corner. But this is an unusual case, and I'm not sure whose argument I support.
What do you think?