by Mike Masnick
Fri, Apr 18th 2008 5:11am
We pointed to some of JK Rowling's questionable testimony in the case against a publisher of a guide book to the Harry Potter universe -- where she made a bunch of emotional claims that had little to do with copyright. In wrapping up the case, she again made contradictory claims, backing away from earlier claims of the book being "wholesale theft" to saying that she wasn't so against the book if it only didn't quote so much of the book. But the much odder part of the case was the closing testimony from the lawyer representing Warner Brothers (who owns the Harry Potter IP rights), claiming that the real harm was that the Harry Potter Lexicon gives away spoilers and that people might say: "You know what? I guess I don't really need the rest of the Harry Potter books because I just read the big giveaways." First of all, that seems unlikely -- but more importantly, giving away spoilers is not copyright infringement. Once again, it seems like WB/Rowling keep appealing to emotional arguments rather than anything having to do with the actual law.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Supreme Court Won't Hear Oracle v. Google Case, Leaving APIs Copyrightable And Innovation At Risk
- Guy Writes New James Bond Book... Only Available Where Bond Is In The Public Domain
- SiriusXM Finally Wins A Case Over Pre-1972 Music... And Promptly Settles Such Cases With RIAA
- Blockbuster Using Its Deal With Warner Bros. To Mock Redbox And Netflix
- Smallville Creators Sue Warner Bros, Say They Never Got Fair Market Price For Their Work