First, the idea that this is akin to a photograph of a Renoir is flawed. That analogy may have worked with mix tapes in the analog world, but not in digital where there is no distinction between a copy and the original.

A closer analogy might be if I had my Salon Premium password in a file that someone else could see and Salon came after me because maybe someone else might look at it. And where is that line drawn? What if the folder was accidentally shared or a security vulnerability exposed previously unshared material?

In the bigger picture though, isn't the real problem the tactics that the RIAA is using? If I am obtaining copyrighted material and sharing that with as many folks as I can so that I can get my hands on more and more music, that's theft. I fail to see how that is any different that swiping a bunch of CD's from the CD store.

There are listeners and there are musicians who fall on both sides of that argument. Maybe it's good marketing, maybe it's not. Notoriety and a large number of nonpaying users is not the same as earning a living. At issue, even after removing the greed of the industry and certain musicians, is that no one's sure what the new model is. How do we value music? How do musicians get paid and how do customers pay a fair price? How do we stop digital theft without handcuffing honest users?

The RIAA's approach is the problem. There is no cooperation, no openness to new models, but simply this extortionate mafioso model of fear and retaliation, crushing any notion of honest discussion of the issues at hand.

The Google analogy doesn't work.

For starters, Google and other search engines direct people straight to your work. It's why they exist--they're glorified phone books. They are not profiting from your words, they are profiting from directing people to your words. The fact that they have advertisers reimbursing them saves you, the author, from having to do the same--they are providing you as much a service as they are providing your readers.

In the case of the Lexicon, the author profits directly from JKR's work, not from a service he is providing to her work. It may be in some cases that someone picks up the Lexicon and then starts scooping up Potter books. However, it seems more likely to me that purchasers of Potter books would add the Lexicon to their Potter collection, not vice-versa.

Google's copy of Salon does not hurt Salon because Google isn't, for example, choosing the best of Salon's content for the day or week, publishing it, and selling it on news stands. Again, Google isn't using Salon's content for the content's sake, they are using the content to drive people to your site. They exist for no other reason.

In addition, it's not so much about the Lexicon "hurting" JKR, is it? Whether it helps or hurts her, the Lexicon directly takes her work and profits from it. Even if it helps JKR, she should retain reasonable rights to it. Maybe if I went and printed a thousand T-shirts with Harry Potter's mug on it, even more people would be exposed to the books and that would help JKR too. It doesn't make it right though, morally or legally.

Finally, you do point out that Google has an opt-out available. Isn't this what JKR is doing?