The NYT reports that there are a large number of Harry Potter books available in China, many more than in the United States. In addition to the authorized copies of the books authored by J.K. Rowling, there are unauthorized copies of these books, there are books that claim to be authored by Ms. Rowling, but in fact were written by other people, and there are Harry Potter books that were openly written by other people. Unfortunately, the NYT article makes no effort to distinguish between these different types of unauthorized books, using the terms "piracy" and "counterfeit" in a haphazard manner. In fact, there are very important distinctions between the different types of unauthorized copies discussed in the article. The differences are important both in the sense of who is being hurt and also the enforcement issues that are likely to arise in China. In the case of the unauthorized copies of the actual book, the only people who are directly harmed are the publisher of the authorized version and J.K. Rowling, who will not collect royalties from unauthorized copies. The readers benefit hugely from gaining the opportunity to buy the book at a lower price. The Chinese economy will also benefit, since Harry Potter readers will have more money left over to buy other goods and services. The issue is more ambiguous when a Harry Potter book is sold that is ostensibly written by J.K. Rowling, but was actually written by someone else. This can be considered a counterfeit, if the reader really believed that the book was written by Ms. Rowling and was part of the Harry Potter series. On the other hand, if the reader bought the book knowing that it was not authored by Ms. Rowling, then it is a pure benefit to the Chinese economy that such volumes are available. It is possible that Ms. Rowling will lose to the extent that these books are substitutes for Harry Potter books among Chinese readers. Also, if people wrongly believe that she authored these books, then it could harm her reputation if these books are not very good. (Of course, if is also possible that it would benefit her, by improving her reputation, if these books are well-written.) Finally, there are Harry Potter books that are explicitly authored by other people. These books are clearly not counterfeits, since readers are presumably well aware of the fact these books were not authored by Ms. Rowling. These books are a pure gain for Chinese readers, since they make books available that would otherwise be prohibited by Ms. Rowling's copyrights. These books could either help or hurt Ms. Rowling depending on whether they are more likely to satiate readers' interest in Harry Potter or to increase the commitment of Harry Potter readers. It would have been helpful if the NYT had distinguished the various issues that come into play in supressing unauthorized copies. The Chinese government is presumably less likely to enforce laws when the main impact is negative for people in China. This means that a crackdown on unauthorized copies of the offical version of the book may be diffiuclt to stop, as would books that extend the Harry Potter stories in different direction, but were explicitly not written by Ms. Rowling. On the other hand, it may be easier to enforce laws that prevent people from claiming that Ms. Rowling wrote a book that she did not in fact write. The reason is that many readers may be upset to find that the book they bought was not very good and was not actually written by Ms. Rowling. In this case, the book would be an actual counterfeit, which means that the buyer herself is harmed, not just a person who has a claim to intellectual property in the product.
--Dean Baker
