Y'all! I know you, my intelligent journal-readers know this, but not everybody out there seems to be able to grasp the concept, so let me just say it here, loud and clear:
STEVE VANDER ARK IS NOT A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE. HE NEVER WAS. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE CAN AFFORD SIX FREAKIN' THOUSAND DOLLARS, OK? BECAUSE HE WON'T BE PAYING IT. LUCKY HIM.
It is RDR Books and slimy Rapoport, the guy who lied to people about the possibilities of a lawsuit, stalled JKR's lawyers, and kept selling the rights to foreign publishers even after this all started going down, who will have to pay.
And I? Am A-OK with that.
Also, before people take sides on this thing, they should at least KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE. The judge didn't just close his eyes and flip a coin and decide JKR should win. There are sound, logical reasons for his decision.
Oh. And JKR exercising her right to enforce her copyrights does not make her a witch, a meany, a bad person, a heinous bitch, or any other combination of insulting words people can dig up to throw at her. I mean, I don't know the woman, and frankly, I wouldn't care if she was a heinous bitch, although it seems unlikely given what I've seen of her in the media and given her charity work and whatever - but no matter what her personality is, she still has the same rights that we all do regarding copyright, and that's as it should be. Would anyone out there want their copyright rights to be any different just because they happened to be mean or have money? No, I am sure they would not.
Oh, and also: Why in the hell should how much money she has now have anything to do with whether she can or should enforce her rights? Would anyone say that rich celebrities don't have, say, the same right to go to a sale and use a sale coupon, just because they are rich? She earned her money by working, and she's trying to protect what she worked for and created. WHAT is wrong with that?
ETA: And something lberghol said reminded me that I wanted to note: One reason I am glad that Rowling did pursue her rights here is that she *is* able to do so, by dint of being a wealthy author. It costs money to go to court and have good lawyers and all of that, and she could afford to do it. If she hadn't, then it might have led to the proverbial "slippery slope" for her and for other authors regarding what other people could do with their rights. Not because her not going to court over this would mean she lost the right to do so, but because others might not be able to pursue it due to lack of funds, etc., so there might be a de facto change in how much liberty others felt they could take with authors' works and not be penalized for it. THAT is one reason I am glad she did what she did - at least now, we have one circuit court's opinion on how the law stands now, affirming that authors do have some protected rights that can't be abridged without permission.