Entry tags:

entitlement, fandom: harry potter, grudgewank, i want to be a hero on the internets, i'm just here for the recipes, in ur wank - swapping our foodz, lying liar that lies, my very firstest wank, not very subtle at all, om nom nom, please mommy make it stop, plucky girl detective, potterdammerung, recipes in comments, she admitted it!, she's on a mission guys!, sockpuppets, the classmate did it, thinks we're fandom police, this is the wank that never ends, we love jf tags, yet another entitled hp fucktard, yummeh foodz

Laptopgate II: Now With Added Condos
As an offshoot of the Lexicon wank, it appears Melissa wank has arrived.

As part of her "impartial" coverage of the lawsuit, Melissa Anelli of TLC apparently felt it necessary to qualify Steve Vander Ark's (signed under oath) statement that the advertising on the Lexicon "covers the cost of running the site" by reminding people that "The Leaky Cauldron houses and runs the Harry Potter Lexicon for zero charge, and has since it came under its current domain name. That is true as of this posting." However, on Feb 11 she admits to denying a request for the transfer of hosting.

This prompts SVA to release more detail than anyone wanted to know about the finances of the Lexicon. Quote: "If there was any income to me, it wasn't much, especially by comparison to the income other websites have earned." The "other website" he specifically mentions is MuggleNet, whose owner claims a "six-figure income" from the site. SVA doesn't mention TLC, but Melissa goes crazy.

A bit of digging reveals that TLC's finances have been discussed before over on I was a Leaky Lounge Mod. In May 2007, a mouse says: "I know for a fact that Melissa used Leaky money to buy herself a new laptop." In September 2007, Gina raised suspicions about who paid for Melissa's New York apartment ("the web provides a TON of information about purchase prices of condos which are pretty darn high to not have jobs *koff koff*") Over Sep/Oct 2007 the subject was raised again, and another mouse said:

"To take Melissa as the main example, as has been pointed out she lives in New York. That place is very expensive, not just real estate but the cost of living as well. She is in no way living off the advance on her book because let's face it, even if all her fangirls and boys buy it it's not going to be a huge best seller. The time has been and gone for that. She has left her full time job and therefore she must be taking at least a 5-6 figure salary from Leaky. If she is doing this and has deliberately registered it in a way that doesn't mean full disclosure, then that is appalling."

The matter was pretty much put to rest until Melissa forced SVA's hand. Ex-staff are pissed. Highlights:

There will continue to be no transparency about Leaky income. They've claimed for far too long that they make no money. I can only say that I actually know this to be total BS. I'd love to tell you my proof, alas I'm not able. Steve threw some stones but Melissa opened a door that, IMHO, that now begs the question of well, so, what DOES Leaky earn then?

and:

Since Melissa is bringing up money herself, she really should answer. If she is going to criticize Steve for trying to make this a full time job that she should be above that same criticism.

Arianhrod marches over to Leaky Lounge with this:

But since it doesn't appear that anyone else is going to ask the logical question, I will.

Just how much does Leaky make from all of this--in profit? Is this considered a hobby by the IRS, or is it a major source (or even sole source) of income?

And before anyone questions my audacity, Melissa has laid it out on the line and brought the subject of hosting and ad revenue costs into the open. It's no longer a private matter--the whole world now knows about it and as such this is a valid question, especially if TLC has been or gets dragged into this lawsuit.

I don't expect an answer--I do expect to get ripped to shreds, and that's fine. But at least I'm not afraid to ask.

Melissa ignores the question. Arianhrod calls her on it ("With all due respect, Melissa, that is avoiding the issue.") Melissa gets defensive.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	clair_de_lalune 2008-02-14 04:05 am UTC (link)
	So, TLC makes some money from ads...and Melissa is upset that she didn't know the Lexicon had been making some money from ads for awhile...and the lawsuit complaint has something to do with the Lexicon being fine as long as it's free, but not allowed when it's for profit...but, isn't the online Lexicon for-profit, too, now that it has ads? Am I missing something? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	waltraute 2008-02-14 04:11 am UTC (link)
	It has to do with the Lexicon being hosted by TLC, I think. If someone else is paying your bandwidth bills, it's polite to say "Oh hey we put some ads on here..." if you want to. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cill_ros 2008-02-14 03:09 pm UTC (link)
	Also SVA's claim in the lawsuit that he paid for the hosting through ads when the Lexicons was hosted for free. (Reply to this)(Parent)

ari_o
2008-02-14 04:15 am UTC (link)

Yeah, I think you are missing a key point. TLC and the HPL are cool as long as they don't start trying to make money using JKR's or WB's actual copyrighted material. That is what Steve is trying to do and has put himself in competition with JKR. Melissa came up with the idea for Leaky as a weblog a long time ago. It just kept track of news and information about the books and movies. Is still does exactly that except it is bigger, is now a website, and has ads. If Melissa tried to print large sections of the discussions and sell it as a -- wait no, it still wouldn't even be close to what SVA is trying to do.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	clair_de_lalune 2008-02-14 04:25 am UTC (link)
	I haven't looked at TLC much, but I see your point that what TLC posts is different from what the Lexicon posts. But, if the book is the same as the website and the website is already making money, how is that different from the book making money? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

skijg
2008-02-14 05:05 am UTC (link)

Because the book *isn't* the same thing as the website. The website contains things like essays and fan speculation which is covered under fair use. The book (apparently) contains none of that, being composed solely of information compiled from the HP books. There is also a difference between charging a small fee in order to cover the operating expenses of a website, which is what Steve claims the ads were for, and printing a book for the purpose of making money, especially when that book would come into direct conflict with one written by the creator of the series.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	ari_o 2008-02-14 06:01 pm UTC (link)
	The website makes very little money with ads probably, and is a free resource to fans. Printing a lexicon and asking fans to pay for it could generate significantly more money and is also blatant copyright infringement. Plus JKR is planning her own "encylopedia." (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	clair_de_lalune 2008-02-14 09:07 pm UTC (link)
	It just seems to me that, if the book infringes copyright, so does the website (even if there's more stuff on the website). And, I don't think it matters how much profit something makes - 5 dollars or 5 million dollars, it's still profit. Either profit is allowed or it's not. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ari_o 2008-02-14 09:15 pm UTC (link)
	Maybe things work that way in the black and white world of your brain, but the world does not work according to your moral code or logic. JKR and her publishers were cool with the Lexicon as a free resource for fans. They didn't care that money was being generated by ads. They do care about the publication of a lexicon for sale in book form. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)