News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by SeanLuke on Monday April 27, 2020 @08:59PM (#23002132)
> Her first book was also written without her receiving any money to do so.

But she owned the copyright to it, and could trade that copyright for a contract on the book. That is, she had a viable monetization mechanism if her work was good.

So once again: absent this, provide a plausible way Rowling could have made money on her first book.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by unishark on Monday April 27, 2020 @11:54PM (#23003187)
>So once again: absent this, provide a plausible way Rowling could have made money on her first book.

The way she made money was extremely implausible.

This is like arguing we need the NBA because it provides a job for LeBron James.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by Retric on Monday April 27, 2020 @09:06PM (#23002188)
If we are talking a world without copyright but all other forms of IP, patrions or merchandise.
[ Parent | on HN ]