Oi!

[ivyblossom]

Well, this just makes me sad:

Rowling acknowledged she once bestowed an award on Vander Ark's Web site because, she said, she wanted to encourage a very enthusiastic fan.

But she said she "almost choked on my coffee" one morning when she realized Vander Ark had warned others not to copy portions of his Web site. She said she now has second thoughts about all the encouragement she has given to online discussions and Web sites devoted to her books.

"I never censored it or wanted to censor it," she said, adding that if she loses the lawsuit, she will conclude she essentially gave away her copyrights by encouraging the Web sites.

"Other authors will say, `I need to exercise more control. She was an idiot. She let it all go,'" Rowling said.

Comments

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, if Rowling were to ignore any book that comes along like that, then she loses her right to enforce her copyrights. Copyright would mean nothing if it couldn't be enforced. Being litigious is the only choice at this point to enforce her copyright since RDR couldn't be convinced to scrap publication of the book. Unfortunately, letting this book sink on its own merits is not the way the world works. The situation here hasn't played nice at all when the original author has rights to stop it.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

No. Being litigious is never the only choice, and it's never the right choice.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I had meant that it appeared to be a last choice that got to that point.

Anyway, as for today, it appears that the Judge in this case agrees with you.