The problem is, even if you read the article linked here, Wu is not likely to have seen the offending document. In fact, none of us have. RDR, the publisher of the Lexicon book, originally threw the request to see the manuscript back at Warner Brothers, telling them to "print the website". Since that was a shite idea, the publisher then began insisting that the book WASN'T like that, but they wouldn't say anything more.

Also, calling the Lexicon book one written by fans, plural, is erroneous. It is almost totally done by the originator of the site. But you knew that, right? You haven't just been rehashing stories written about it from biased sources without doing your own independent research, right?

Theresa - I commented again clarifying my point re: indices. And I certainly hope you aren't arguing that "hackwork" indices should be encouraged, which was rather the sarcastic point I was making originally.

A tiny bit of online legwork would illustrate the ways in which RDR Books has not done itself many favours, but to be brief: 90% of their actions until this point have been taken without any legal counsel. A brief reading of the legal documents I linked earlier indicate that RDR has been less than forthcoming despite legal requests for documentation, has misrepresented facts (most recently, arguing that RDR's proposal of a delay was accepted, when RDR's motion was denied), and has not complied with the judge's order to cease promoting the book.

And as an aside: Wow, that was a whole lot of tl;dr I just churned out.

I certainly agree that there are valid scholarly indices and compendia - quite a few of the examples mentioned in the comments more than qualify as such. The issue is this specific case of the Lexicon website and book, which has been described in a few places as some sort of bastion of original research, textual analysis, and surprising discoveries.

Parts do fall into those categories - again, the timelines did take a significant amount of work to produce, and god help the saps who combed the books with an outdated calendar at their side. However, the little known about the proposed book indicates that the original character study essays may not be included. Large parts of the website are little more than a cursory repackaging of the original books.

I think the debate on what constitutes fair use, the concept of Creative Commons, and the merits of various aspects of academia to be fascinating. However, the Lexicon book is a poor case to use as a cornerstone of the argument, in the very least because the publisher keeps shooting himself in the legal foot, so to speak. The other HP companions that are out there make clear their unofficial status and do not crib largely from the original work. JKR and WB in general do not involve themselves often in the goings on of fandom in the online sphere.

The Lexicon site may be popular, but I do not feel it deserves the status it is now gaining as "champion of freedom of speech" thanks to RDR Books.

A small part of the Lexicon counts as original scholarly work. The creation of timelines, for example, required significant textual study.

For the most part, however, the information in the Lexicon website is little more than a quick copy-paste of what was already in the book. If Rowling wrote "The spell made fluffy bunnies appear," the Lexicon wrote Spell - makes fluffy bunnies appear.

If that's scholarship, I wish I hadn't wasted a year on literary analysis to graduate college.

The article linked to here is a highly biased account of what is actually going on.

This story has been followed in the Harry Potter fandom (home to all things insane) since November 1, at the least. The creator of the online version of the Lexicon hooked up with a less than scrupulous publisher who, when contacted by WB's lawyers, refused to give a copy of the book and told them to print out the website. As the website cribs heavily from the books, that didn't help the case that it was legal. Recently, the publisher has been whining that WB has jumped the gun by filing a suit before getting a copy of the book, contradicting the original statements.

Most frustratingly, the publisher has been saying that the postponement of the trial was due to their own proposal. In fact, the publisher requested a delay but was denied. The current postponement was granted for the Plaintiff, in this case WB. The legal documents can be found at http://news.justia.com/cases/20070525245370/

There's a lot of disinformation about this case on the web right now, most of it coming directly from the publisher's many rants disguised as press releases on his own web page.