First, I am an enthusiastic fan of the Harry Potter series of adventures. I greatly appreciate the work it took to weave such an imaginative tale, drawing upon current and historic folklore, and enhanced with Rowling's creative vision. Believe me, I love her work.

But I must agree that "discussion boards", whether published on the internet or in hard copy, are not an infringement of her copyrighted works. Especially when one must "have read the original to follow the discussion", as has been said.

I find it very interesting that Rowling accepts the internet discussion boards, but opposes a hard copy of those boards. The internet is but another variant of written publication...

Tho not a professional writer, I have written numerous research papers in the last 30+ years. I was taught to research a number of available sources, paraphrase passages that supported my line of thought, quote passages directly when necessary, draw my own conclusions from the available information, and present those findings in an intelligent manner.

The very important key to not stepping on literary toes, of course, is to include a bibliography, giving credit where it is due, to the original authors whose works were used to create the research paper or book. But this item is something which all authors and publishers are already aware. And in this case, Rowling is being given full credit for her work. Where then, is the infringement?

Most book sources I've used for research, give a bibliography of yet other books which each author has used to write their own books. This is an ages old, accepted form for writing any follow-up book or paper.

It is customary and expected that once an written work has been published, there will be publications from other authors, quoting or paraphrasing that work - and naturally giving credit to the original source. And in this particular case, Rowling's authorship has not been slighted. In fact, she's been given the highest regard and compliment.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Slate has pointed out, not all such follow-ups will be well executed. As a writer, Rawlings should already be aware of this, and has no more right to expect control of that than any other original author. She needs to accept that, and hope for the best.

If Rowling were to win this case, every single research author living would be subject to law suit. As well as all students everywhere who've ever written a term paper.

With all due respect, this is quite ludicrous. Rowling and cohorts need to bow out gracefully on this one.

... my two cents.

~ T.C. Kennedy

My sincerest appologies to Tim Wu! I credited "Mr. Slate" with content which was written by Mr. Wu...

I just commited the sin of not proof reading myself and checking the source...

How ironic.

~TCK

Except this Lexicon is not an adaptive work; nothing in it is original, reflective, or more ethical than a copy and paste program.

Why shouldn't JK Rowling have control over her orignal work? Do you lose the rights to your own ideas and words after ti reach a certain fame status.

I think that the Lexicon is fully adaptive and reflective.

Adaptive in the sense that the author of the Lexicon entry must pull together from seven complete works. I am sure that very few entries are copied ver batim from a single sentence in a single book. Instead, several different references across several books are necessary, thus the entry author must reflect on what is relevent, what is not, and write it in a single, cohesive entry, with, or without, original artwork.

Of course, I am sure that JK paid full royalties to the original creator of the idea of dragons, the philosopher's stone, three-headed dogs, griffons, trolls, elfs, and, of course, wizards.

What we of course are talking about is the difference between the "official" and "unofficial" versions of such a work. Since it does take work to boil various lexicon entries down to single, cohesive entries.

If I were to write an entry on the three-headed guard dog and include the fact that such a dog existed in Greek mythology, I am writing something completely new, not "copy and paste" from any of the books.

The lexicon is not a discussion its a copy of definitions and such from her books. A website and book, also, are not the same thing. A site is the free spreading of information, no one is getting a profit. With publishing and selling a hard copy, ie book, profit is earned. If you take something that isn't yours, be it physical property or creative ideas, and sell it to gain a profit without the owners concent then its stealing.