It didn’t take long for Scholastic, the U.S. publisher of the Harry Potter books, to send us a takedown notice for our post “The Latest Harry Potter Book Hits BitTorrent.”
In an email yesterday, Mark S. Seidenfeld, an attorney for Scholastic, demanded that we “act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material or items claimed to be infringing” and referred to the post. The full text of the notice is below. A print article in USA Today says that they are contacting every site that has mentioned this story and demanding it be taken down.
There is a vague possibility that we could be found liable of contributory infringement, our attorney says. As could USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and CNN who, among many others, mentioned that the book was available on The Pirate Bay (but without linking).
But really this is just a bullying (albeit very polite bullying) tactic by the publisher to try to stop word spreading that the book, like almost all popular media today, is available free on BitTorrent for those who choose to steal it. They’re trying to shoot the messenger, and this kind of stuff has a chilling effect on free speech. If they want to bring legal action against us, ok. But we’ll fight back, and the entire drama will be posted for everyone to follow.
From: “Seidenfeld, Mark”
Date: July 17, 2007 6:20:15 PM PDT
To: Michael Arrington
Cc: “Chatillon, Dev”
Subject: Notice of Infringement/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling – 1 postingDear Sir/ Madam,
I, the undersigned, certify under penalty of perjury that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books and owner of copyright rights therein, and Scholastic Inc., exclusive U.S. publisher of the Harry Potter books, including without limitation the cover and all other art incorporated therein (collectively, the “IP Owner”). I have a good faith belief that the materials identified below are not authorized by the IP Owner, its agent, or the law and therefore infringe the IP Owner’s rights according to state and federal law. Please act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material or items claimed to be infringing.
I may be contacted at the below address/phone/email. Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark S. Seidenfeld
Counsel
Scholastic Inc.Infringing Materials (infringement of copyright, including publication, duplication and distribution rights):
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/07/17/the-latest-harry-potter-book-hits-bittorrent/
I’m definitely on you’re side over this, so what if there is a torrent, I’m getting the book anyways
the thing is… the people who are downloading this book on the internet are the same people who will be buying their reserved copy at borders at midnight when it goes on sale. i mean, the casual reader is not going to care that much about harry potter to download… and if they now they’re more likely to buy the first twenty books.
a smart (2.0?) company would spin this the right way — “look how popular our media is” — rather than trying to stop what can’t be stopped.
I am wondering: do emails have the same legal weight as a written takedown notice? someone could just make up an email while you have to sign and certify a letter.
I am also with you on this one. Very smart move on your behalf to make this all public and share it with us . You’re definitely right about this raising a lot of questions regarding free speech. It’s nice to see you didn’t surrender. I guess we all learned our lesson of how not to act from the Digg revolt a few months back.
Reading a book on a computer screen doesn’t work for anyone. First printing out a book you downloaded, and then read it that way…. nah, that’s more expensive than just buying the book! So I consider the availability of the book on bittorrent and the noise after that a smart marketing move by Rowling. In the near future, I predict, a major book publisher will publish all their books for free on the internet.
I think this is crazy. TechCrunch didn’t do anything illegal, they just reported news
The guys who did the illegal work are the guys seeding the torrent. Im glad things like Digg help remove the effectiveness of take down notices.
Michael, I love the way you take stance against pesky legal guys. That’s one of the main reasons why I love reading the blog, especially your posts.
Good on you for the position you are taking Mr Arrington. This looks like a standard DMCA takedown – but the interesting twist is that there was never even a link to the offending content. So if I posted on my Blog. “Hey, I just heard that Harry Potter has been released to BitTorrent” that could be a violation of the DMCA? Absolutely ridiculous. Glad I live in Australia.
Ugh…nothing to do with free speech. Its a civil issue not govt. I wish people who were told to shut up by someone else didnt scream “1st amendment!!!” every chance they get…
Jimmy, why would you think such a thing? Put yourself in their shoes, and tell me, as a business model what would be the token of value of a Publishing company if it did not sell it’s copies.
You guys, including Mike are trying to justify this illegal bittorrent action by diffusing the issue at hand and emphasizing what YOUR right is. Frankly, you don’t have right in this manner. At this point on the only people involved are the publishers, the real theft who uplaoded the work and those who download it.
I do agree with Mike that the litigation letter is just a scare tactic, and thats all it will be to him. Even if the Publisher is interested in pursuing any sort of action, it would be highly unlikely for them to come out with a honoring mention out of the court. This site derives too much traffic and hype that plays an important role.
thats my take anyway.
p.s. Mike posting an active link to the said file was not news! far from it
People have been claiming the book is an “elaborate fake”. This just confirms it is real. If it wasn’t why would you be getting flak for “copyright infringing” materials?
This underscores that old media just doesn’t get it. They consistently act in a defensive manner and aren’t creative enough to use the net to their advantage.
They have every right to defend their copyright, but can’t they come up with more pro-active strategies to achieve the same goal based on cost/benefit? I think the same goal could be achieved without the stone cold, corporate reminder that they want their money. For example, here’s one idea: a the first sign of a torrent, release the first chapter with some special “secret” hidden information. I think it would be cheaper than paying the lawyers and would improve the corporate reputation.
Ugh, I can’t wait for Old Business to die.
Please, don’t expect the same sympathy-levels that most of us dish out to other websites that get takedown notices.
You know why you did it … it’s been a few weeks since TechCrunch was last in some kind of controversy … and here’s perfect media-bait.
Lawyers will be lawyers.
They have to find a way to earn their keep.
But you?
smith288 – the issue here is that a corporation is threatening legal action to make us do what they want, when they have no real basis of doing so.
Jimmy – FYI, we never posted an actual link to the site. And, frankly (to use your word), we do indeed have rights in this matter.
Vinit – my point is that I won’t be threatened. And I use this blog to make it hard for people to do so. I’m not looking for sympathy, I don’t need it. But I am using my voice to defend my business.
I’m curious, if someone were to take the book, encrypt it using the infamous ROT13 encryption scheme and then post it as a torrent, would Scholastic have any right to stop them? Doesn’t the DMCA come into play against them?
Everyone go out and download: Uneel Cbggre naq gur Qrnguyl Unyybjf
Its not about free speech, its about piracy and stealing, which you apparently support by reposting.
Do you buy liquor for your underage neighbor kids too?
mike i would like to congratulate you on a great defense;
– or atleast making worldwide opening statement in a lawsuit lol
– also couldn’t they in a lawsuit get a Gag order?
not a lawyer, Rb
I am frustrated on two counts. First, it is frustrating that individuals feel it necessary to rip off the work of authors and other artists and publish it. I think this carries no good reasoning to back it up. Secondly, I am frustrated that Scholastic would choose to handle this matter immaturely. I understand they want to keep a tight lid on the book…But I think reporting that something exists and actually helping people get their hands on it are two very separate instances.
It’s ironic. Their legal scare tactics help spread the word even further.
If they really wanted bloggers to take this down, they could try to explain in informal language that these kind of posts are hurting them, and if you kindly agree to take it down they’ll be most grateful.
I can’t be certain I would comply with such a polite request, but I sure would consider it positively. I would certainly not aggravate the situation in reaction to a humble request as opposed to a patronizing baseless legal threat.
Being nice goes a long way with people.
I guess Techcrunch wouldn’t have any problem with someone creating a mirror site and copying every post that Techcrunch writes… After all, information yearns to be free, right?
I’m in the midst of reading Lawrence Lessig’s phenomenal book “Free Culture” which has inspired my comment here.
Rowling/Scholastic owns the copyright, and based on current (pathetic) US copyright law can most certainly go after someone who is illegally distributing that content. TC did not do that.
It is *highly* unlikely that Torrent or anything else will cause a dip in sales. In fact, I’d wager you could take the *entire book* page by page, put them online in plain text, PDF, or HTML formats, and still not impact sales. Maybe in a few years when e-ink makes it possible to make some really usable electronic books, but today, the reality is that anyone who wants to purchase this book is extremely unlikely to be swayed by having some method to download it.
Furthermore, lawyers like this need to start thinking smarter and longer term as they defend their clients. When the future does permit a usable means for replacing printed books, the last thing publishers need is a system like Torrent alive and kicking. Trying to attack individual outlets is nothing but shortsighted.
Good job here Mike!
Who cares? These people don’t get it. They’d sell more copies if they’d play the game…sending nastygrams hurts their position. Dumb… Good stance on it Mike.
So now, obvious question, is this the opportunity to link to this story about the lawyers threatening those that posted the story about where/how/what is going on with the entire Harry Potter book being available online?
THEN would the lawyers come after those of us who link to the story about the aforementioned lawyers threatening those that posted the story about where/how/what of the Harry Potter book being available?
Just askin’.
Hi Michael,
For standing up to them, you’ve got my respect, and good wishes! I admire men of principle, and your response stands out as opposed to Digg’s initial reaction in a similar scenario. To impose any sort of liability on linking opens the internet up to an impossible situation. If a site I link to posts something scandalous at the URL I linked to, this legal line of thinking seems to say I am liable, which pretty much dooms the internet and free speech altogether.
Eric
For some reason none of this really surprises me at all. I can’t even really remember when it became a crime to talk about other people publicly committing a crime and how the did it.
I find it intriguing anymore that people are being sent cease and desist letters over talking about something that happened. From the HD-DVD (or was it Blu-Ray, either way it is still all silly to me) key being leaked to now stupid pictures of a childrens book being leaked. And on top of this, these are millionaires, and sometimes billionaire companies, whining to me and you and everyone about this. Seriously, if they should think we really care…
Note to these individuals and companies: I AM GLAD THAT SOMEONE TOOK SOME WIND OUT OF YOUR SAILS! Read that loud and clear. The millions of dollars you spend every year on Brangelina to make terrible films could go to more suitable causes like AIDS research, cancer research, or quite even possible that little global warming thing that you have been preaching down my throat for the past few years (and making even more millions off of, hypocrites). Imagine if we stopped making bad movies and writing cliche books for a year? Think we could put enough money towards a good cause and maybe solve the problem? I do.
So am I worried that you lost a few pennies to a few readers or viewers? Nope. Do you think that sending letters to blogs and news sources is going to magically stifle and cover up what happened? I’ll answer for you, nope. I say bear with it, and you’ll live another day, as will I…just a bit poorer than you.
yogi – there are dozens, literally, of sites that take our RSS feed and repost everything we write. Do I like it? No. but it happens and I ignore it.
Pretending that BitTorrent doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. IP laws need to be rewritten for this century. This is news, obviously, all the big media papers picked it up today.
Man, I wish I was reborn and get lucky to marry J.K rowling. I guess poor girl grow up rags to richest.
It’s interesting that some of the debate in the comments (both on this post and the original post) is over the legality of the book being on Bit Torrent; it’s an interesting debate but it has nothing really to do with our coverage. We didn’t post the book, we didn’t host a torrent, we didn’t even provide a link to it. Any site or media outlet has the right to report the facts, and in this case we did: that the book was on Bit Torrent, and it’s absurd of Scholastic to suggest that somehow by reporting a fact we are in breach of their copyright.
I’m definitely on the side of Scholastic, Bloomsbury, and the Harry Potter fans. Posting the link was participating in piracy, and spreading plot-spoilers. Though I do like TechCrunch.
AvadaKedavra
Nor did we spoil the plot…certainly it would be hard for me to have done so, I haven’t read the book and yet I wrote that original post.
see my last comment: WE DIDN’T POST A LINK!
Just to be clear, you did publish a copy of two pages of the book, which is protected by copyright.
You didn’t have the legal right to do that.
The rest of the chatter is just noise. You are in the wrong. End of story.
Nothing to see here, move on.
I understand both sides of the argument. Sure Mike is reporting the news, but I don’t know what the law is if a picture of their copyrighted material (the inside page of the book) being displayed or linked to. In their minds, someone illegally photographed then uploaded their book before it was to be released and it was displayed on TechCrunch. Mike may not have posted a direct link to the torrent but by telling people that it was available at The Pirate’s Bay and what to type in to find it, of course Scholastic is going to come down on you, how would you not see that coming? Other sites may have posted the news but I don’t think it was as detailed as it was here. They will argue that you supported the downloading of it.
Of course this will help their business. What loser takes over 740 pictures of a book and even worse, who would read through it when most are nearly illegible? Still Mike, you say you’re not being intimidated or scared and I am know this isn’t the first time this happened to you so you have a tougher skin than most, but I would be wetting myself right about now.
There is no question that bitorrent having the book for free download is not right. But reporting that news with no link is not wrong. This is just another case of corporations trying to use their money and power to force people to do things they want. I have to believe Ms Rowling would be upset if she knew – I would be. Here’s an idea Michael – post the email address that was sent to you for replies – I think your users could figure out some innovative ways of fighting fire with fire! Of course most of your users are probably smart enough to be able to find “Mr.” Seidenfeld’s email address on their own!
If the Lawyers are reading this, which i suppose they are, why didn’t you people just come out and say the ‘leaked’ copy is a false one. I mean relinquishing ANY thought of the leaked version is a manipulated copy would secure your client/publisher every penny for the ‘real’ thing. no public embarrassment! it would have been genius!
Are you becoming a bit of a bully each passing day?
Plan to join the Dark Lord, eh?
Who dies in the last Harry Potter book?
The publishing industry.
My lawyer has instructed me to say only: “No comment.” Need Custom Software Development?
I can understand why they are doing this right now… having an early release of a book like Harry Potter really potentially hurts its launch not because necessarily people will want to read a book through hundreds of photographs, but because of how important it is to many loyal readers to not find out what happens ahead of reading it- which has already begun to happen and really annoy a lot of fans. People don’t want spoilers, and Scholastic is attempting to keep that from happening to much.
I understand your argument that Scholastic may just be bullying as you have no responsibility over this- and I doubt they would actually sue, but I see their point too.
I can understand why they are doing this right now… having an early release of a book like Harry Potter really potentially hurts its launch not because necessarily people will want to read a book through hundreds of photographs, but because of how important it is to many loyal readers to not find out what happens ahead of reading it- which has already begun to happen and really annoy a lot of fans. People don’t want spoilers, and Scholastic is attempting to keep that from happening to much.
I understand your argument that Scholastic may just be bullying as you have no responsibility over this- and I doubt they would actually sue, but I see their point too.
The letter does prove that, while the attorney for Scholastic may (or may not?) know something of “copyright law”, he doesn’t know much, if anything, about constitutional law to suggest that any law related to “IP owner’s rights” can take precedence over the rights of the press as stated in the First Amendment, which is what he certainly seems to think.
Makes me wonder if I want to give my money to stupid publishers who hire these kinds of idiots…
“we didn’t post a link” – thats a bit disingenuous. You did clearly post up exactly where the book could be found. Same thing really.
You could have published the story without referring to the locations where it could be found. Would have had exactly the same impact.
TechCrunch had every right to publish two pages of the book under fair use/fair dealing laws common to most countries.
All those “intellectual property” advocates speaking out against TechCrunch need to realise that what they are proposing is restricted press, which is a very slippery slope.
Free press is about as important as democracy in any society.
Also, all those people chastising TechCrunch for publishing the location of the book should perhaps consider who’s side to REALLY defend…
http://www.stal...rry-potter.html
You can’t be held legally liable for copyright violation, but that doesn’t mean that Duncan was right to create that post.
I’m actually very disappointed in TechCrunch over this issue, and as somebody who is (was?) being considered for TC20, I don’t take saying this lightly.
You hurt many of your own readers by posting that yesterday, which was obvious by the hurt reactions and sincere pleas you got about it which were totally ignored. Your demonstrated lack of caring about the spoilers that the post unleashed makes you look as clueless, callous and arrogant as you accuse “big media” of being.
Does “new media” mean unprofessional media? Does new media mean there are no editorial standards? Does new media mean you should climb the free speech high horse and not take any responsibility for the consequences of what you publish? Even it if your actions and inactions have hurt your own audience?
Duncan has argued that everybody already knew about BitTorrent and could easily and quickly find the book without his post. If that’s true, then what was the point of his posting this at all?
Duncan has also argued that it was legitimate news because other media have reported it. Is that your editorial guideline? That your editors can report any and all news that strikes their fancy, no matter if it’s relevant to what your “About” link claims you write about here? As I said yesterday, some of us were actively avoiding sites that could give spoilers, and based on your own description of what this site is and what you normally talk about, I didn’t expect to find them here.
Duncan has further argued that he didn’t spoil anything, which just adds insult to injury. It’s like a bully punching somebody in the face and then saying “Shut up, that didn’t hurt.”
I know we’re all still finding our way. It would be unfair to hold TechCrunch to traditional journalistic standards even if you wanted to be, which I’m sure you don’t. I’m not trying to demand that you adopt those standards as your own. One of the things I like about new media is that it’s forging its own respectability. Still, this feels like a disappointing setback to me.
“You hurt many of your own readers by posting that yesterday”
Are you serious? They posted the news that the book was on the torrent networks – itself only surprising and newsworthy in that it took this long for it to happen – and you think that “[hurts]” people? Get a grip.
Dawn – you need to suck it up and deal with this. It’s a cold, dark, brutal world out there, and if the worst thing you ever come across is us reporting that a book made its way to BitTorrent, count yourself lucky. As I said before, if you missed it on TechCrunch, you can find the same report a day later on the front page of the WSJ or USA Today, and on CNN. Same story.
Well said. Unfortunately, some people just don’t get it. I don’t know how hard is it to get the fact straight that TechCrunch didn’t provide any direct link to the torrent, neither the torrent is hosted on a TC server.
I respect the way Michael is handling this. As Noah said, free press is about as important as democracy in any society.
not being able to link to stuff is criminal. those criminals who passed these laws should all be thrown in jail.
but with criminals running the country, does ‘the rule of law’ actually have significance today?
i think not.