Just as in Prince Hamlet's Denmark, there is something rotton in the state of copyright law.
The victory of J.K. Rowling in her copyright case - see here - is disturbing.
The reference book in question does not copy lengthy passages from Rowling's works. Instead the book provides an informative reference work based on a collaborative website.
But J.K. Rowling wanted to use the law to ban the book, and she has (so far) succeeded.
In my opinion, this is an abuse of copyright law. If cases like this succeed then copyright law, at least in the United States, is as in dire need of reform as their tort (ie, personal injury) law.
I like the Harry Potter novels. I have read them all. The last few I have bought and read on the day of publication. I am not one of those who sneer at her readable style or anguish at her commercial success. She deserves every penny she has earned from the novels.
(Indeed, in Sirius Black, she has created an ideal godfather that those - like me - who are destined only ever to be godfathers can hope to achieve.)
The Harry Potter works are good stuff, and such an original creation warrants legal protection, but Rowling's intellectual property rights should not extend too far.
But they have done on this occasion.
A reference book about the world of Harry Potter should not be within the scope of her copyright protection. If it is, then there is no reason in principle why any copyrighted work should not be protected from being the subject of a reference work.
A reference work, by its very nature, needs to expressly refer to elements of the original text.
And it is no excuse - no excuse at all - for Rowling to witter on that she wanted to do such a reference book herself, with the proceeds "going to charity". (Or is that "charidee"? ) The fact that her exploitation of any copyright will go to a certain end does not logically confer to her a prior copyright.
As Prince Hamlet's mate Macbeth almost said: "Is this a gross abuse of copyright law I see before me?"