The amount of spoiling around the last book in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Series, released last week, has raised a number of important questions about ethics. I write this as someone who isn't particularly interested in the Potter books. I read one and that was enough.

Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times says the embargo is really all about making lots of money for Rowling and the publishers. He has a point. It might be one reason why the seventh and final Harry Potter book is now the fastest selling book in British publishing history. But was the embargo just about money?

Across the world last week, bookshops were swamped with witches, wizards and a host of magical creatures vying for the first glimpse of the final Potter book. OK, it's not my thing but with that in mind, it's worth asking whether broader ethical issues are involved.

Ethicist Bruce Weinstein puts it well in BusinessWeek:

"It's not inconsiderate to reveal secrets. It's unethical. That's right. Spoiling the ending of the Harry Potter book (and other creative works) isn't rude. It's wrong. And by wrong, I mean immoral.

"Here's why. First, the fans of Harry Potter have invested a lot of time, money, and passion in the first six volumes in the series. They have read and reread hundreds of pages over ten years, and they are entitled to discover Harry's fate on their own.

"Second, author J.K. Rowling has a right to have her intellectual property respected. This right is fundamentally an ethical one, whether or not it is codified by law. That is, even if you aren't breaking the law by spilling the beans, you still shouldn't do so. Rowling has worked diligently over the years to tell the tale the way she wants to tell it, according to the schedule she has set, and it is unfair to disrespect her wishes. The fact that she is one of the most commercially successful authors of all time doesn't mean that she gives up her right to be treated with respect; our duty to honor the integrity of her creation would apply even if her publisher hadn't sold a quarter of a billion books (so far).

"Third, society has a compact with artists. They entertain us, and we support and protect their right to do so. If either party reneges, the deal is off. For example, if we hire a magician to come to our child's birthday party and he makes inappropriate comments to the kids, we'll fire him with good reason. On the other hand, if the magician does his best to make the occasion a joyful and spirited one, but the kids act up and make it difficult or impossible for him to perform, the performer may reasonably tell us, ...Sorry, but I can't do this,... and end the act early."

Weinstein is absolutely spot on.