"I can't pick a side! Either way I look at it, I'm right!"
That's a little Gilmore Girls humour for ya.
I posted this over on the LeakyLounge, and well, I felt like posting it here, too, only with a little bit more honesty.
[WARNING: I have a lot of opinions, and a lot of questions, and I make attempts at humour, but I'm tired and they may not be funny at all. But hey. I had fun writing this, so that's what counts.]
This is a fairly long post, but I am trying to make some sense of the SVA/RDR vs. JKR/WB (Holy excessive acronyms, Batman!) case, as well as the many issues raised here in this thread.
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.)
It is clear, IMO, that Steve Vander Ark and RDR books are in the wrong by trying to publish such a book.
[READ: STEVIE, YOU SUCK. KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF AND PLAY NICE.]
In the news post by Melissa, SVA's statement is quoted as saying the money made from Google Ads and Amazon links ($100-115/month) goes towards the costs of operating the website. In that same post, Melissa points out that the Lexicon is hosted for free by TLC.
As pointed out by Steve in his "What's New" update, helpfully quote in full by Melissa, website operating costs don't necessarily mean hosting costs. They can be things like software and books and other resources which may arguably be needed to maintain the site both in terms of technical needs and in terms of content and updating the site.
However, by including that note about TLC hosting the Lexicon, Steve interpreted that as Melissa indirectly insinuating that he was lying about where the money made from Google ads and Amazon links goes. I'd say that's an understandable interpretation, whatever Melissa's intentions were in restating that information at that point in the news post.
[READ: MELISSA, YOU'RE A JERK. ALSO, YOU WERE TOTALLY INSINUATING THAT HE WAS LYING.]
Melissa has made several long posts here explaining that she is bothered by the fact that Steve never asked if he could or should pay for hosting the Lexicon once he placed ads on the site. She finds this to be an act of disrespect.
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.
[READ: STOP BEING SO GOD DAMNED PASSIVE-AGGRESIVE, MELISSA. YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH HIM? JUST TELL HIM. THE MAN IS CLEARLY NOT THE BRIGHTEST BULB IN THE BOX TO HAVE HIRED RDR AS HIS PUBLISHER, SO GIVE HIM SOME SLACK, CUZ HE'S CERTAINLY NOT PSYCHIC.]
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.
[READ: SIX FIGURE INCOME! SIX FIGURE INCOME! SAY IT AGAIN, PEOPLE, SIX-FIGURE INCOME! IT'S REALLY FASCINATING NEWS, PEOPLE.]
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.
I think that raises a very interesting point, which could have greater ramifications for fans and fandom at large. Websites like Leaky and MuggleNet have many ways of supporting their websites: through advertising on their sites and in their podcasts, selling t-shirts, merchandise, books, etc. Clearly, money gets produced by all of these things.
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.
[READ: MONEY MONEY MONEY, MONAY!]
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.)
[READ: business. GET IT? I'M INSINUATING THAT THEY MAKE MONEY AND THAT WE DON'T GET ANY OF IT! HAR HAR HAR. HERE, HAVE SOME CHOCOLATE. UM, MONEY?]
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.)
[READ: CAN OF WORMS CAN OF WORMS CAN OF WORMS! THIS'LL ALL END IN TEARS.]
A lot of fans put a lot of hard work and effort into various endeavours, and they do so without being paid. As a result, money is a very sensitive issue when it comes to fandom. A fan who makes money from their fandom work may be seen as breaking ranks and spoiling the fun (after all, if one person can make money off it it, why not you?). And as fans of something, concern for the rights of the creator's intellectual property arises as well.
[READ: HEADS ARE GONNA ROLL. IF EMERSON MAKES MONEY, WHY CAN'T I? WHY CAN'T YOU? WHY CAN'T LEXICON STEVE? TO QUOTE HOMER SIMPSON: I can't take his money, I can't print my own money, I have to work for money! Why don't I just lie down and die?] *sings* nana why don't you get a job?
However, if a fansite is not legitimate business, but instead a non-profit entity (which I believe The Leaky Cauldron is?), don't they have a responsibility to be transparent about their finances? It is my understanding that a non-profit organization is meant to serve the public, so it may be in the public's interest to be assured that any profit made from such an organization is put to good and reasonable use.
[READ: DOES LEAKY HAS A LEAKY WALLET? YEAH, IF YOU'RE SO NON-PROFIT AND HARDCORE, SHOW US THE MONEY!]
In conclusion, the JKR/WB should win her case against SVA/RDR, and when it comes to fansites and money, it's very murky territory.
[READ: FUCK Y'ALL and THIS POPSICLE STAND.]
Bottom line, SVA and Melissa are both playing the victim card here. Probably both are a little bitter that they didn't get in the game as early as Mugglenet supposedly did (or do as well, considering MN has always had more hits), so they both lose. Only SVA loses even more, obviously.
*deep breath*
This was fun. G'night.
I posted this over on the LeakyLounge, and well, I felt like posting it here, too, only with a little bit more honesty.
[WARNING: I have a lot of opinions, and a lot of questions, and I make attempts at humour, but I'm tired and they may not be funny at all. But hey. I had fun writing this, so that's what counts.]
This is a fairly long post, but I am trying to make some sense of the SVA/RDR vs. JKR/WB (Holy excessive acronyms, Batman!) case, as well as the many issues raised here in this thread.
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.)
It is clear, IMO, that Steve Vander Ark and RDR books are in the wrong by trying to publish such a book.
[READ: STEVIE, YOU SUCK. KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF AND PLAY NICE.]
In the news post by Melissa, SVA's statement is quoted as saying the money made from Google Ads and Amazon links ($100-115/month) goes towards the costs of operating the website. In that same post, Melissa points out that the Lexicon is hosted for free by TLC.
As pointed out by Steve in his "What's New" update, helpfully quote in full by Melissa, website operating costs don't necessarily mean hosting costs. They can be things like software and books and other resources which may arguably be needed to maintain the site both in terms of technical needs and in terms of content and updating the site.
However, by including that note about TLC hosting the Lexicon, Steve interpreted that as Melissa indirectly insinuating that he was lying about where the money made from Google ads and Amazon links goes. I'd say that's an understandable interpretation, whatever Melissa's intentions were in restating that information at that point in the news post.
[READ: MELISSA, YOU'RE A JERK. ALSO, YOU WERE TOTALLY INSINUATING THAT HE WAS LYING.]
Melissa has made several long posts here explaining that she is bothered by the fact that Steve never asked if he could or should pay for hosting the Lexicon once he placed ads on the site. She finds this to be an act of disrespect.
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.
[READ: STOP BEING SO GOD DAMNED PASSIVE-AGGRESIVE, MELISSA. YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH HIM? JUST TELL HIM. THE MAN IS CLEARLY NOT THE BRIGHTEST BULB IN THE BOX TO HAVE HIRED RDR AS HIS PUBLISHER, SO GIVE HIM SOME SLACK, CUZ HE'S CERTAINLY NOT PSYCHIC.]
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.
[READ: SIX FIGURE INCOME! SIX FIGURE INCOME! SAY IT AGAIN, PEOPLE, SIX-FIGURE INCOME! IT'S REALLY FASCINATING NEWS, PEOPLE.]
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.
I think that raises a very interesting point, which could have greater ramifications for fans and fandom at large. Websites like Leaky and MuggleNet have many ways of supporting their websites: through advertising on their sites and in their podcasts, selling t-shirts, merchandise, books, etc. Clearly, money gets produced by all of these things.
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.
[READ: MONEY MONEY MONEY, MONAY!]
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.)
[READ: business. GET IT? I'M INSINUATING THAT THEY MAKE MONEY AND THAT WE DON'T GET ANY OF IT! HAR HAR HAR. HERE, HAVE SOME CHOCOLATE. UM, MONEY?]
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.)
[READ: CAN OF WORMS CAN OF WORMS CAN OF WORMS! THIS'LL ALL END IN TEARS.]
A lot of fans put a lot of hard work and effort into various endeavours, and they do so without being paid. As a result, money is a very sensitive issue when it comes to fandom. A fan who makes money from their fandom work may be seen as breaking ranks and spoiling the fun (after all, if one person can make money off it it, why not you?). And as fans of something, concern for the rights of the creator's intellectual property arises as well.
[READ: HEADS ARE GONNA ROLL. IF EMERSON MAKES MONEY, WHY CAN'T I? WHY CAN'T YOU? WHY CAN'T LEXICON STEVE? TO QUOTE HOMER SIMPSON: I can't take his money, I can't print my own money, I have to work for money! Why don't I just lie down and die?] *sings* nana why don't you get a job?
However, if a fansite is not legitimate business, but instead a non-profit entity (which I believe The Leaky Cauldron is?), don't they have a responsibility to be transparent about their finances? It is my understanding that a non-profit organization is meant to serve the public, so it may be in the public's interest to be assured that any profit made from such an organization is put to good and reasonable use.
[READ: DOES LEAKY HAS A LEAKY WALLET? YEAH, IF YOU'RE SO NON-PROFIT AND HARDCORE, SHOW US THE MONEY!]
In conclusion, the JKR/WB should win her case against SVA/RDR, and when it comes to fansites and money, it's very murky territory.
[READ: FUCK Y'ALL and THIS POPSICLE STAND.]
Bottom line, SVA and Melissa are both playing the victim card here. Probably both are a little bitter that they didn't get in the game as early as Mugglenet supposedly did (or do as well, considering MN has always had more hits), so they both lose. Only SVA loses even more, obviously.
*deep breath*
This was fun. G'night.