PDA

View Full Version : JKR sues E-bay



PattiTheWicked
02-27-2007, 06:34 PM
JK Rowling is suing Ebay for breach of copyright after Indian sellers sold unauthorized copies of her books. Interesting article here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1437673.ece

Susan Gable
02-27-2007, 08:41 PM
Here's another site she needs to get after:

http://www.esnips.com/doc/d0eab061-2381-4dd9-9d72-5bc96e28a56b/Harry-Potter-and-the-Half-Blood-Prince

This site has loads of unauthorized books up for free downloading. There's one of mine up there -- I've already sent a note to my editor and Harlequin's legal department.

But Rowlings has LOADS of clout and has already proven she's not afraid to take these jokers to court. I hope her people are aware of this other website, too.

Susan G.

MMcC
02-27-2007, 09:15 PM
This is one of many reasons I adore the woman. When she does this she is not just sticking up for herself, but people like us who could never afford to throw down with these weasels.

benbradley
02-27-2007, 09:44 PM
I've been an eBay seller, and eBay has gone through this type of thing with a huge number of products. Rowling and her publisher are surely far from the first to sue eBay over this sort of thing. I'm not sure who is right or wrong in this case ... okay, I just read the article:

"The injunction presents difficulties for eBay, whether it succeeds or fails in policing its users’ sales. If the company is able to remove all sales of electronic copies of Harry Potter books then other brands will demand similar treatment when their rights are infringed by sellers. If it fails, it will be in contempt of court."

No doubt this is going to cost eBay, which will complain loudly about it, and probably use it to justify yet more seller fee increases.

eBay claims to be "just a venue" but will remove specific auctions if "you" (the publisher or JK or who ever owns the copyright) signs up for their "VERO" program, and then points out each offending auction.

But there's been 'opposite' problem as well. I've read a lot of controversy on eBay's discussion boards, once an individual or company has signed up for VERO they can report auctions arbitrarily, such as (examples I recall) public domain drawings and designs that the company also happens to use. eBay immediately removes auctions on the VERO holder's word, and there's a long and complicated appeals process. For more info, go here:
http://www.tabberone.com/
scroll down and click on Tabberone's Trademark Page and Tabberone's Hall Of Shame.

Shadow_Ferret
02-27-2007, 11:26 PM
Reminds me of the whole Metalica whining about unauthorized music downloads.

I'm unsure now where I stand on this issue.

Susan Gable
02-28-2007, 03:49 AM
Reminds me of the whole Metalica whining about unauthorized music downloads.

I'm unsure now where I stand on this issue.

How can you be unsure? It's THEFT, pure and simply. JK Rowlings has not authorized ANY ebook formats of her books. So anyone selling an ebook of any the Harry Potter books is doing something illegal.

She's entitled to make money from her work, just like any other writer. (Or musician, or artist, or whatever.)


Susan G.

roach
02-28-2007, 06:59 AM
How can you be unsure? It's THEFT, pure and simply. JK Rowlings has not authorized ANY ebook formats of her books. So anyone selling an ebook of any the Harry Potter books is doing something illegal.

She's entitled to make money from her work, just like any other writer. (Or musician, or artist, or whatever.)


Susan G.

While I support any artist protecting their intellectual property, I'm compelled to point out that this is not theft but copyright infringement. It's a fine but important distinction.

And . . .

Reminds me of the whole Metalica whining about unauthorized music downloads.
whining? I mean I laughed at the Camp Chaos and South Park cartoons mocking Metalica along with the rest of the world but they (or perhaps more properly their record label) were within their rights to object to the unauthorized copying of their material.

PeeDee
02-28-2007, 08:54 AM
I wouldn't have minded Metallica's complaints...except...by the time they were complaining, they had just finished putting out three or four CDs of absolutely terrible music.

Nail 'em, J.K. Rowling. This is fine. It's very easy to get ebook copies of novels which aren't authorized. Just hit your local BitTorrent web-site. Hell, you can get anyone's audiobooks too (of course I've looked; you should be aware too).

This isn't always a bad thing. By which I mean, it's definitely not a good thing, but it's not as catastrophic for books as it is for music. That makes it no less wrong, and makes it no less deserving of being slammed into.

Shadow_Ferret
03-01-2007, 12:31 AM
How can you be unsure? It's THEFT, pure and simply. JK Rowlings has not authorized ANY ebook formats of her books. So anyone selling an ebook of any the Harry Potter books is doing something illegal.

She's entitled to make money from her work, just like any other writer. (Or musician, or artist, or whatever.)


Susan G.
Yes, I was unsure of what my position was. But now that you've yelled at me, I'll come down on the side of the people downloading the books.


While I support any artist protecting their intellectual property, I'm compelled to point out that this is not theft but copyright infringement. It's a fine but important distinction.

And . . .

whining? I mean I laughed at the Camp Chaos and South Park cartoons mocking Metalica along with the rest of the world but they (or perhaps more properly their record label) were within their rights to object to the unauthorized copying of their material.
Whining, yes. At no point has it ever been shown by the RIAA ever shown that downloading songs significantly cuts into anyone's profit or that those same people would have bought the music in the first place.

Also makes me wonder how the loss of sales due to ebook downloads compares to the loss of sales to library checkouts or used book sales. I'd believe downloading is a tiny percentage.

ChunkyC
03-01-2007, 09:11 PM
How much money is lost is beside the point. It's copyright infringement, which is illegal. People should not look the other way when someone is breaking the law. Whether the copyright holder is or is not losing money is a secondary issue and only relevant if seeking damages.

Anyone infringing on another's copyright should be made to stop and punished under the law if they don't.

Kate Thornton
03-01-2007, 09:28 PM
Anyone infringing on another's copyright should be made to stop and punished under the law if they don't.

Hear, hear. I absolutely agree. Go get 'em, JKR!

Celia Cyanide
03-01-2007, 11:06 PM
Whining, yes. At no point has it ever been shown by the RIAA ever shown that downloading songs significantly cuts into anyone's profit or that those same people would have bought the music in the first place.

Absolutely. If you see Metallica's Some Kind Of Monster documentary, you see the whole Napster saga up close from Lars's perspective, and you can see that it was all about him. There is no delusion in his mind that he was standing up for all the indie rock guys who couldn't afford to sue. He was saying eff you to all the people who were interested in his music.

This JK Rowling ebay situation is different from the Napster situation, because someone other than Rowling was profiting. Nobody was profitting from Napster. But yeah, Lars was whining.

I read a Rolling Stone interview with him, and he was talking about how he used to hang out in James Hetfield's basement for hours and tape each other's records. Home taping was the Napster of the 80's, but he apparently had no problem with it when he couldn't afford to buy all the records he wanted.

Susan Gable
03-02-2007, 12:54 AM
Yes, I was unsure of what my position was. But now that you've yelled at me, I'll come down on the side of the people downloading the books.

Always happy to be of service. :) Glad to have shoved you off the fence, no matter which side you landed on. <G>

Susan G.

Shadow_Ferret
03-02-2007, 01:37 AM
Always happy to be of service. :) Glad to have shoved you off the fence, no matter which side you landed on. <G>

Susan G.
The view from the top of the fence is much nicer though.

Jamesaritchie
03-02-2007, 01:55 AM
While I support any artist protecting their intellectual property, I'm compelled to point out that this is not theft but copyright infringement. It's a fine but important distinction.

And . . .

whining? I mean I laughed at the Camp Chaos and South Park cartoons mocking Metalica along with the rest of the world but they (or perhaps more properly their record label) were within their rights to object to the unauthorized copying of their material.

However you label it, it's still theft. Copyright infringement IS a form of theft, even from a legal standpoint. And anyone who does this is a low-life thief.

The rest of the world did not laugh at Metalica. Huge numbers supported them fully. Only the low-life thieves, and those who stood to profit by mocking them, did not.

But numbers do not matter. A low-life thief is still a low-life thief, even if everyone in the world applauds what the thief does.

There are few things I dislike more than a thief. Most children are taught "If it isn't yours, don't touch it." Too many adults don't have the ethics of a child.

Celia Cyanide
03-02-2007, 02:09 AM
The rest of the world did not laugh at Metalica. Huge numbers supported them fully. Only the low-life thieves, and those who stood to profit by mocking them, did not.

That isn't true at all, James. Many artists did NOT stand behind Metallica, because they believed that Napster exposed them to a wider audience. Not all artists can get radio play, and downloading was a way for kids to hear their music. Metallica's position in no way represents what all musicians believe about downloading music.


There are few things I dislike more than a thief. Most children are taught "If it isn't yours, don't touch it." Too many adults don't have the ethics of a child.

Actually, children were prosecuted for downloading illegal music after Lars Ulrich's hissy fit.

ChunkyC
03-02-2007, 02:26 AM
I personally have no problem with downloading if it's done with the permission of the one who holds the copyright. If a band wants to put their music up on the Internet and let the world have at it for free, go nuts. I might give it a listen myself. Same thing for ebooks, audio or print, or any other copyright-able material. If the copyright holder says it's okay to make copies and pass them around, then it's cool and good on them for wanting to share their creation for free.

But taking copyrighted material and distributing it without the express permission of the copyright holder is illegal, plain and simple.

Celia Cyanide
03-02-2007, 02:55 AM
In the case of Napster, at least at the time of the Metallica lawsuit, the music was not put there by the artist, and therefore, the people downloading it did not have express permission. However, many artists still did not support the Napster lawsuit, because they just didn't have a problem with file sharing, even though it wasn't them doing the sharing. It's still technically illegal, but many artists never prosecuted, because they just didn't care. Knowing that their copyright had been infringed upon was a small price to pay for having people know who they were and come to their shows.

There was a big fan backlash against Metallica as a result of what Lars did. Yes, he was legally in the right, but it did more damage to Metallica's career than good.

ChunkyC
03-02-2007, 03:35 AM
That's certainly true. I do remember the kerfuffle, and that many peeps did think Lars took it too far. He could have comported himself much better and still made the same point.