Bottom line, there are two issues at stake here with the SVA/RDR case.

1) PROFIT: A website, like the Lexicon, does not cost a visitor/user anything. Even if there are ads everywhere, it's free to use. Whereas a published, printed book must be purchased. Maybe you can get one at a library, but it's unlikely to be so common as to find it in every local library, so you'd *have* to buy it in order to read it.

2) COPYRIGHT: Publishing the Lexicon book (which, despite conflicting accounts) is likely alphabetized encyclopedic information about the HP books. Which is, at its core, re-arranging content created and owned by JKR. (And while some may argue that publishing the Lexicon Book won't hurt a book published by JKR, given her worldwide success and popularity, one must take into consideration that allowing the Lexicon Book to be published may affect the rights of other less well-known authors and copyright holders who do not have JKR's success. Allowing the Lexicon to be published may set a standard for copyright infringement that could hurt others in future.)

(There's also the issue that the Lexicon book would be in competition with the official encyclopedia that JKR intends to create. Knowledgeable HP fans online may know about these nitty gritty details, but average people buying a gift for their child, grandchild, friend, co-worker, etc, won't necessarily know the difference. Buying the Lexicon Book would take away potential buyers of JKR's encyclopedia, the profits of which will go to charity.

On top of all that, the Lexicon (website and book) is bound to have inaccuracies in it, simply because Steve Vander Ark is *not* the authority on all things Harry Potter, JK Rowling is. I'm not sure whether or not that has any legal bearing in the matter, but it may not be that great for consumers who expect 100% correct information from an encyclopedia, and maybe JKR is entitled to protect consumers from that kind of misinformation and inaccuracy.)

Why? Because Leaky was doing them a favour by hosting the site for free. And in Melissa's view, once there was a change in circumstances (ie, ads on the Lexicon), SVA should have offered or asked if he should pay or contribute to the cost of hosting the Lexicon.

Melissa sees such an offer as an act of courtesy in an amicable working relationship. That, as she has pointed out, has little do with the legal issues at stake, but is important to her on a personal level. However, (n)etiquette in such matters isn't exactly universal: everyone knows CONSTANT CAPSLOCK is rude, but this is less common and more intricate. Steve may not have realized he was doing anything that Melissa would find hurtful or disrespectful, and there was nothing stopping Melissa/Leaky from discussing it with SVA, asking about the ads once she/they found out about them, and determining whether or not anything in their arrangement should change.

Since the issue of money (and what it is used for) was raised, SVA points out that compared to Emerson Spartz of MuggleNet (who allegedly makes a six-figure income off of all things MuggleNet), any revenue generated from advertisements on the Lexicon is fairly insignificant.

It appears as though SVA, in an attempt to defend himself, is convoluting the main issues at stake (Profiting off of the Lexicon Book and Copyright Infringement of JKR's work). Maybe he's trying to drag other websites that earn money (whether for profit or to "support the site") into the case, in order to better justify him making a profit off of his book.

Emerson supposedly makes a substantial amount of money off of MN, and there's at least one article that reports Ben and Andrew as receiving a salary for their work at MN. Do salaries such as theirs count as profit, or supporting the site? It's hard to say. Paying staff to do the work that keeps things running could count as "supporting the site", but how does one draw the line between compensation and significant profit? Where and how does one decide who should be a paid staff member and an unpaid volunteer? That's a can of worms, I'm sure.

Does (or should) making money off of such a website count as copyright infringement? Both MN and TLC use images, videos, and information about HP on their websites. Both surely generate revenue from ads and selling merchandise. How much or how little of that revenue is needed to support the website's financial costs, and where does the leftover money (if there is any) go?

It could be argued that MN and TLC provide a news service and entertainment, and that they have every right to make a profit off of their websites. If so, they don't need to divulge any information about how much or how little profit they make and where or to whom that money goes. It's not our business, it's theirs. It may even be detrimental to such websites for financial information to be given to the public, especially if such a website draws popularity by presenting an image of being run by hardworking volunteers. (It may even be detrimental to the running of a site if there are a few paid employees and a large number of unpaid volunteers who are unaware that others working on the site are paid.)

So what does this all have to with our (former!) friend, Lexicon Steve? Is it arguable if that websites like MN and TLC can be legitimate profit-making businesses, maybe SVA/RDR has more of a case for profiting off of a book based on JKR's work? Again, I'm not sure. (I still think the point about a website being free to use, versus a book which one has to pay for, is very significant.)

This is BS, in my opinion. First of all, the encylcopedia hasn't been started yet. There is no indication as to when we might expect such a project. To claim that Steve's book will interfere with profits when her book may not be published for 5 or 10 years is absurd. And the charity argument is lame, too. If she cares so much, why wait to write the book? She's got more money than the Queen--she can donate some now.

This is about power, and no mistake. Philanthropy has nothing to do with it.

I'll bet a hundred galleons that any encyclopedia of JKR's would have had the same mistakes as the Lexicon. It's my guess that she intended to copy and paste right from the Lex into the encyclopedia. Not all of it, certainly, but lets face it, the Lex is one of the best resources for HP mania out there. It may not be 100% accurate, but neither is Encyclopedia Britannica.