Last Updated Apr 14, 2008 1:42 PM EDT
Rowling's side argues that the book does not provide commentary or criticism, but is simply a wholesale repackaging of her work. Fair enough. But is Rowling wrong for just now deciding that "The Harry Potter Lexicon" is stealing from her? Why was it OK when it was a free web-based product, but not when it's on the printed page? Some legal scholars think the case could help draw new legal lines, but has Rowling crossed over an ethical line? The fansite supported her and her work for years, do doubt helping her to make a few bucks, and now that they're trying to make a buck - they reportedly received a "tiny advance" - the billionaire is going to cast a wicked spell on these fans?
Share your thoughts on this case in the comments section.