(Reprise article) 

A lawyer friend once said “all Intellectual Property disputes can be broken down into two categories, “you trespassed on my property” or “it’s not your property.” A copyright, patent or trademark is a piece of paper much like a deed to your house. So if someone builds something that extends on to your property his line of defence will always be either, no, it’s not on your property or you don’t own that property.

That will be £300 and yes, I’ll take a cheque.

Mrs. Rowling and Steven Vander Ark seem the unlikeliest of combatants. Mrs. Rowling confessed to using his online encyclopaedia to quick reference and verify facts when writing her last book and even gave Mr. Vander Ark an award. A somewhat obsessive media darling, he has appeared on numerous news shows and his website has a cult following.

So what happened? Well Mr. Vander Ark decided to go from online to direct publishing and was contracted to create a book form of his work. That, says Warner Brothers is a bridge too far and so they sued for breach of copyright asking the judge to block publication.

The case has stirred the Internet publishing world’s interest since websites routinely share data and feeds. With the advent of RSS/XML feeds, news is transported around the globe in nanoseconds and, in theory if not practice, website make money off of other people’s content.

The question, as in any IP dispute, is where is the line and how does one know if they have crossed it?” What complicates this case is the tacit if indeed unofficial endorsement of the plaintiff in this case. Their argument is, you cannot use my work and the defendant says you never objected until we decided to print a book.

The Wall Street Journal reported: “the judge in the case called on the parties Tuesday to settle, saying he was concerned the case was “more lawyer-driven than it is client-driven.”

Judge Robert Patterson, Jr., at the end of the day’s session in U.S. District in Manhattan, said: “The fair-use people are on one side, and a large company is on the other side.”

From this chair it seems a bit silly that franchise that wiki media estimates has generated some £7 billion pounds ($14 billion dollars) in book, film and merchandising rights to deny someone the right to earn £2-3 million seems petty.

Dr. James Grove, MD said it best on The Huffington Post:

“Maybe part of our joy in Rowling’s success was that she had earned her money by writing, not reigning. And we all felt good for her. But there is a limit to how much a God-given talent belongs to the recipient alone. The perfect word “gift” in such circumstances says that the artist is given those talents, not self-made.
It’s a dangerous sort of hubris. Here is part of a letter from architect George Grant Elmslie to a different type of genius, Frank Lloyd Wright:

Why not, in the years of your great maturity, exhale a modicum of kindliness to others, endeavoring to do their bit? No one can afford it so well as yourself. But alas, you are not endowed with so human an element, only with a curious quality of vanity, and a rather vulgar and childish egotism. You seem to have it in your mind that you yourself do your work, whereas the impulses are much deeper and more universal than the mere ego which you adore.

Careful Ms Rowling, Harry Potter is deeper and more universal than you may have realized. Your books belong not just to you alone.”

When a judge says try to settle, it is because he is likely to cut this baby down the middle and neither party will be happy with the outcome. Time Warner, how much is enough? Mrs. Rowling, I am sure your tears were heartfelt on the stand about Harry being your child. Why not give the geeky kid a licence and call it a day rather than a US Supreme Court test case that will drag on for years…

Do the right thing so this kid can bring further joy to millions of others.