For the record, I didn't read the online scans and I'm not going to buy the book; not a Potter fan. However, I don't think that Rowling's intention about how people ought to read the book has, or should have, any moral or legal force.
The purpose of copyright law is to encourage authors to profit from (and thus share) their works, not to enforce authorial intent. People who have read the scans have not supported Rowling's wishes for the reading experience, but that doesn't mean what they've done is morally wrong, assuming they then go on and buy. If I wrote a book and asked that nobody read it except on Saturdays, you'd agree that that was unreasonable; would you also agree that readers do nothing wrong in ignoring that wish? How, except in degree, does that differ?
IMHO the polite thing to do is to have the Potter parties and read the books then. However, somebody who reads the scans and then immediately buys the books has done Rowlings no wrong. The only thing they have done, it seems to me, is to omit "courtesy, at least, to living authors".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-20 04:07 pm (UTC)The purpose of copyright law is to encourage authors to profit from (and thus share) their works, not to enforce authorial intent. People who have read the scans have not supported Rowling's wishes for the reading experience, but that doesn't mean what they've done is morally wrong, assuming they then go on and buy. If I wrote a book and asked that nobody read it except on Saturdays, you'd agree that that was unreasonable; would you also agree that readers do nothing wrong in ignoring that wish? How, except in degree, does that differ?
IMHO the polite thing to do is to have the Potter parties and read the books then. However, somebody who reads the scans and then immediately buys the books has done Rowlings no wrong. The only thing they have done, it seems to me, is to omit "courtesy, at least, to living authors".