I am very concerned over how much backlash this (and the last) post has received. Admittedly, the first post took a harsh tone toward Rowling, perhaps this irritated her fans, but I would expect fans more than anyone should understand the value of the HPL. For the most part, it doesn't seem like Rowling's defenders have given any thought to the intended role of copyright law.

I am not an avid Harry Potter fan, and I certainly have never looked up anything in the HPL, but it sounds like a useful reference for many, many fans. More importantly, I can't imagine that reading the HPL is in anyway comparable to reading a Harry Potter Book. The HPL is filled with facts, they aren't facts about the real world, they are facts about the Harry Potter books. For whatever reason, though, the facts contained in the HPL have influenced millions of real people's real lives. They have real world importance. I don't understand why so many readers are so eager to see these facts locked away under copyright.

Anyone who reads this blog knows how tumultuous this decade has been for copyright law. Digital media and the internet have resulted in scores of legal challenges. Many laws are in need of reform. To do this, the public needs to ask itself exactly what copyright is their to protect. According to the US Constitution, copyright is about ensuring an artist has the incentive to produce quality work. In other words, writers should be able to profit from their work. They do not need absolute control over their work (remember the recent post about crazy ol' Prince suing his fan site?)

If the HPL gets published, there's no way it's going to hurt Harry Potter book sales, but even if it did, so what? Copyright isn't about protecting a copyright holder's ability to make boatloads of money. It's about making sure writer's keep writing, and ensuring that public has access to this writing. Ironically, a court ruling against the HPL has exactly the opposite effect. It prevents people from having access to a printed copy of the book, and probably discourages future fans from producing high quality references guides, or other work inspired by copyrighted material.

Regardless of Farhad's questionable analogy between his blog and the Harry Potter series, the real issue is why we have copyright, and what people think it should accomplish.

Back when Farhad blogged about this impending lawsuit, he rather bluntly called into question J.K Rowling's wisdom and motives. It was obvious that his criticism rubbed many Harry Potter fans the wrong way, but I was still shocked how many people zealously chimed in to defend her decision to sue. I'm excited that (at least for now) this new round of reader commentary is a bit more moderate. It doesn't seem that Rowling's concern over weeping in court garners as much sympathy.

Given the confused state of US copyright, I'm pessimistic about the outcome of this lawsuit, I expect J.K Rowling to win. Still, it appears to be an absurd lawsuit. Assuming that the HPL does not frequently quote entire paragraphs/pages at a time, there is no reason it should not exist in book form. I have never read a Harry Potter book, but it seems perfectly clear that Harry Potter is a significant part of the culture I live in. I see know reason why the "facts" associated with that culture should be copyrighted.

More to the point, our copyright law is in a state of flux. As a society, we need to ask ourselves what role we want copyright to play. It's original intention, as stated in the constitution, is to promote the creation of useful art and science. It was not created because people had a god given right to control their intellectual creation.

In light of copyrights original intent, Rowling's lawsuit serves no purpose. The HPL can only exist because Harry Potter is already a huge success. Simultaneously, it seems completely implausible that the HPL's existence will even discourage anyone from buying the actual Harry Potter books. Finally, since this lawsuit is trying to block the HPLs author from making money off of his work, a decision in Rowling's favor sets a precedent that actively hinders the creation of useful web-based content.