Home > Talkback
National News

Viewing comments for:

Harry Potter Case Illustrates Blurry Line in Copyright Liability

National News • April 21, 2008
For a time, "Harry Potter'' superfan Steven Vander Ark seemed to be living a geeky dream. His Web site — an obsessive catalog of spells, characters and creatures in J.K. Rowling's novels — was a ...

Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.

Subject: RE: Is Rowling the only one affected?

Posted On: April 22, 2008, 6:27 pm CDT
Posted By: Chuck
Comment:
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.
Subject Posted By Posted On
RE: Is Rowling the only one affected? Chuck
Apr 22, 2008, 6:27 pm
Is Rowling the only one affected? KLS
Apr 22, 2008, 4:38 pm
RE: Dang muggles Chuck
Apr 21, 2008, 6:51 pm
RE: Dang muggles nancy
Apr 21, 2008, 5:00 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: Enid Blyton andy
Apr 21, 2008, 3:30 pm
RE: RE: RE: Enid Blyton Brianna
Apr 21, 2008, 3:24 pm
RE: RE: Enid Blyton Joey
Apr 21, 2008, 3:08 pm
RE: RE: Enid Blyton The Traveler
Apr 21, 2008, 3:01 pm
RE: Enid Blyton Nobody Important
Apr 21, 2008, 2:23 pm
Enid Blyton Elaine
Apr 21, 2008, 2:07 pm
RE: Dang muggles matt
Apr 21, 2008, 11:57 am
Dang muggles lastbat
Apr 21, 2008, 11:30 am
Back to article

Post a Comment

.