The ongoing case in U.S. District Court over Pennsylvania librarian Steven Vander Ark's proposed print version of his "Harry Potter Lexicon" is a fascinating look at how out of sync our legal code is with our read/write culture. The Lexicon is an impressively obsessive cataloguing of every aspect of the seven Harry Potter books. This is where you go when you want to know who first discovered the magical properties of gillyweed or you need a refresher on which wand Hermoine used during her escape from the Malfoy mansion ("walnut and dragon heartstring, 12.5 inches," of course.)

The Harry Potter Lexicon is an impressive work by a clearly devoted fan, and you can easily see how useful Vander Ark's site would be invaluable as a sort continuity guide for J.K. Rowling herself. Indeed, she's even talked about using the Lexicon as a reference instead of cracking open her own books when she needs to check a fact. Rowling has publicly been a big fan the site -- until, that is, Vander Ark decided to move it from online to print.

So know Rowling is suing Vander Ark for violating the copyright on her works, and he is arguing that he's protected under the principle of fair use. For those of us interested in new ways of making culture, one of the the more interesting questions that will be taken up in this case has to do with whether something like the Harry Potter Lexicon takes something away from the body of work it spawned from, or if it only serves to increase interest in the books themselves.

It would be useful, I think, for a court to affirm the argument that our cultural attention isn't zero sum, and so anything that serves to boost interest in what J.K. Rowling first created is a net benefit. Of course, every man, woman, and child in the world already owns copies of Harry Potter 1-7, so it might be difficult to convince a judge in this particular case that by remixing her work you're doing Rowling much of a favor.