- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
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.
