Scholastic Loses It Over Harry Potter/BitTorent Story

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. KC
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

   I’m definitely on you’re side over this, so what if there is a torrent, I’m getting the book anyways

2. trvs
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

   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.

3. heri
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

   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.

4. Blonde 2.0
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pm

   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.

5. jimmy
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm

   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.

6. Tony
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pm

   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.

7. Don Wilson
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

   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.

8. Dag
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm

   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.

9. smith288
   

   July 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pm

   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…

10. Jimmy
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    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

11. Harry Poter
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    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?

12. TheChris
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    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.

13. Vinit
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    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?

14. Michael Arrington
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    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.

15. Michael Arrington
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    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.

16. Daniel E. Renfer
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    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

17. eric
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    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?

18. Concrete Stain
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    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

19. David Mackey
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 7:46 pm

    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.

20. Ola
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    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.

21. yogi
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    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?

22. Jeremy Toeman
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    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!

23. Mark S
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    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.

24. Eric Rice
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    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’.

25. Eric
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    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

26. Steve Jabs
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 8:15 pm

    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.

27. Michael Arrington
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    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.

28. Life
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    Man, I wish I was reborn and get lucky to marry J.K rowling. I guess poor girl grow up rags to richest.

29. Duncan Riley
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    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.

30. AvadaKedavra
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    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.

31. Duncan Riley
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    AvadaKedavra
    see my last comment: WE DIDN’T POST A LINK! 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.

32. Michael
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    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.

33. Kelli
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    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.

34. MrktMind
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pm

    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!

35. Jim
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    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!

36. Ravi
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Are you becoming a bit of a bully each passing day?

    Plan to join the Dark Lord, eh?

37. Mike Abundo
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 10:16 pm

    Who dies in the last Harry Potter book?

    The publishing industry.

38. Dave
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    My lawyer has instructed me to say only: “No comment.” Need Custom Software Development?

39. Rajiv
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    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.

40. Rajiv
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    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.

41. Glenn
    

    July 18th, 2007 at 11:56 pm

    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…

42. John Thomas
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 12:34 am

    “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.

43. alastair
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am

    You could have published the story without referring to the locations where it could be found. Would have had exactly the same impact.

44. Noah Slater
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 1:16 am

    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.

45. Noah Slater
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 1:18 am

    Also, all those people chastising TechCrunch for publishing the location of the book should perhaps consider who’s side to REALLY defend…

    http://www.stallman.org/harry-potter.html

46. Dawn
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am

    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.

47. Dave Child
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 1:53 am

    “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.

48. Michael Arrington
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 2:15 am

    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.

49. Avinash
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 3:27 am

    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.

    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.

50. Peter
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 3:31 am

    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.

51. Ron
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 4:18 am

    Just because CNN and other legitimate news agencies also mentioned Pirate Bay doesn’t put you in the right. Seriously, read the TechCrunch Harry Potter story again and compare it with stories from those other news agencies.

    The TechCrunch story practically reads like an advertisement for downloading of the book on BitTorrent. There’s no mention of copyright infringement or the the fact that the book is appearing on Pirate Bay ILLEGALLY and that downloading the book would be ILLEGAL.

    Instead, TechCrunch publishes a picture from the book, reviews the quality of the pages (deeming them readable for “for desperate fans”) and provides directions to the download location for would-be readers. The worst part is TechCrunch ending the article in a why that may imply that it’s okay to download the book as long as it’s “for educational purposes.” Who knows how many people were misled into believing that?

    Bottom line, direct link or not TechCrunch is indeed responsible for encouraging piracy of the book.

52. A Reader
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 4:42 am

    Weird - because Shelley The Republican seems to have had the whole last chapter of the book up for eight hours. Guess they can’t find everyone.

53. atanu
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 5:03 am

    For all the vitriolic postings of the IP warriors here, there seems to be a misunderstanding of copyright issues, wilful or otherwise. mere reporting is not abetting piracy, and i’d assume reproducing a couple of pages or commenting on its quality very obviously falls under the concept of ‘fair usage’ mandatory and inherent to any copyrighted work.
    If anyone should be sued, it should be JK Rowling for lifting material and ideas directly out of so many authors in the first place. Jeez!

54. Rich Miller
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 5:03 am

    Bookstores in New York City are breaking the embargo and selling the book. The New York Times ran its review in the A section today, and indicated that the review was written using a copy of the book purchased legally in an unnamed NYC bookstore. A companion story notes that Scholastic has filed a lawsuit against a small online bookseller that broke the embargo and is shipping copies.

    Scholastic’s biggest problem at the moment is with bookstores with whom they have contracts, not web sites linking to TorrentFreak (or even direct-linking the Pirate Bay) . The big question is whether the “release date” will hold until Saturday.

55. LonelyBloggers
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 6:27 am

    I don’t do it often, but I support TechCrunch 100% and their right to post about it. Michael and crew have done nothing wrong in this instance, nor are they contributing to piracy…

    It’s always “murky water” anytime copyright infringement is involved, but to be held liable for simply reporting on this story is well ..silly and mis-informed.

    Like the RIAA, these industries are still badly lacking the tools and technologies to effectively police their intellectual property. Having a bunch of lawyers try to remove all websites/publications that have reported this is pretty medieval - not to mention this approach simply draws more attention to the issue at hand.

    Keep it up TC! Good work.

56. wezlo
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 6:44 am

    I find the, “Well you told people where it was” comments odd. The story was that it hit bittorrent. Which raises huge issues about how you defend copyrighted material in a peer-to-peer world. That’s why it’s news, and why just about every major news outlet reported the same thing. Everyone take a deep breath please. I’ve got just over 24 hours to wait until I get my copy - don’t spoil the last hours of anticipation with whining about news reports.

57. Ronald
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 6:54 am

    So now everyone knows that the scans are from the real book.

58. Cameron Watters
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 7:18 am

    Mike,

    In an effort to wade through the comment muck (particularly the “posting a link was evil”), let’s see if I have this straight.

    Your lawyer believes that you may have some exposure (e.g. it’s not open-and-shut) associated with “contributory infringement”, which I assume is something along the lines of “you facilitated infringement by telling them not only that the book was available via bittorrent, but specifically describing, but not linking to, a location at which they could find the appropriate .torrent files and which search terms to use”.

    If that’s accurate, then it would seem that your lawyer doesn’t consider the single photo of the book that you posted is a basis for an infringement claim? That sounds right.

    That should cover all of the “Stupid muggle, I hope Scholastic uses the Avada Kedavra curse on you and your website” comments.

    A separate question: Given the fact that early Scholastic public comment on this leak was clearly worded to suggest that the book was likely a fake, one wonders how they can so clearly talk out of both sides of their mouth without limiting their legal recourse in some way…

59. Jeff D
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 7:21 am

    How on earth could this have a “chilling effect on free speech?”

    The right to free speech is a right to POLITICAL free speech. How is your right to free speech being limited when you show people a pirated book and they (the copyright owner) demand that you take it down? Do you have a right to scream “Fire!” in a packed room when that might cause a stampede and injure people? No. Nor do you have a right to violate the copyright of others.

    I’m willing to be that if you ever write a book, you don’t want it distributed for free via bittorrent when you are earning a few dollars for every copy sold. That’s why Scholastic is mad. This is costing them money on one of their most profitable offerings of the year.

    Say what you want about Scholastic’s actions, but pretending that TechCrunch is some bastion of free speech because of the letter they received is showing that you have little to no understanding about what exactly our right to free speech really is.

60. Joe Wilson
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 7:25 am

    Mike,

    I am surprised at your response to this. As a lawyer, I assume that you realize that IP rights (and copyright also, I believe, although IANAL) are only maintained if the owners make a good faith effort to assert that ownership. I suspect that Scholastic is simply covering their bases on this and seriously doubt that any further action on their part is likely.

    That being said, if they continue to pursue every blogger or website that even mentions the BitTorrent copy of the book, then I completely agree that they are being heavy-handed and figthing back is a completely appropriate response.

61. Dawn
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 7:41 am

    “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.”

    Mike, this time last year I was burying my husband of 25 years; waiting for my only son to go back into Iraq where he had been wounded, killed people and saw friends died right in front of him; and was being treated for Stage 3 breast cancer with chemotherapy and radiation after a radical mastectomy. If it makes you feel better to discount my criticism as from somebody who falls apart at the slightest thing, then I’m glad I was able to feed your sexist condescension.

62. Doug Lay
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 7:56 am

    Jeff D:

    I’m so glad you know what the boundaries of free speech are, and what constitutes political speech. Personally, I think the inherent incompatibility between the Internet and late 20th-century copyright laws is a deadly serious political issue.

63. Greg
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 8:26 am

    I always have to laugh when I hear someone justify downloading something with the statement ““for educational purposes.””

    Wouldn’t that mean that university students shouldn’t have to pay for books? They are among the most expensive you can buy, and believe it or not the writers often make nearly nothing on them considering the time it takes to write them.

64. SomeGuyOverThere
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 8:33 am

    The quality of this thing is so bad that its barely readable anyways. This won’t stop anyone from getting the books. They should relax.

65. Jeff D
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 8:36 am

    Doug,

    To clarify I don’t think TechCrunch did anything wrong here at all.

    I just thought it was an over-reaction of monumental proportions to claim that Scholastic’s actions in some way impinged upon free speech.

    I’m certain that Michael can and does edit or delete comments that are vulgar and cross whatever line he feels should be drawn here. His doing so does not violate anyone’s free speech. In fact he could delete any comment he wants, because he owns this site and it is his private property.

66. Trace
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 8:45 am

    I for one am grateful for Michael and his posts. He and his team read and have an opinion on subject matter often long before other news media. And, he does it with an asshole flair that is hard to find these days. (insert sarcastic laugh here)

    Luckily I am young, I will outlive old business models and see the media revolution which has only just taken its first few steps in the 21st century.

67. Peter J Hedge
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 8:53 am

    It seems to me that the obvious solution to keep the ending of the Potter saga secret would be for JKR to have written several endings and leaked all the “false ones”. That way there would have been so much confusion the publis would have lost interest and simply waited for the release date.

    It’s a bit late now, of course, but I am very surprised and disapointed that the New Yoor Times would review the final book days before it is available to the masses. That just sucks!

68. NIGGER
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:28 am

    THE WHITE RACE REIGNS SUPREME!

69. Namrok
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:30 am

    In all fairness, specifically mentioning where you can steal something, without providing a direct link, is pretty low. I’m not sure if it makes you legally culpable, but its definitely low.

70. Mike
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:36 am

    “this kind of stuff has a chilling effect on free speech”

    Again, this issue has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech rights are only relevant to commentary on gov’t, not civil matters. What a lame “trump card” to throw down.

    BOO!

71. william
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Its Fake.
    Why cant people see that?

    The publishers are going to laugh at everyone when this is done, I am sure they’re behind it. Some ghostwriter got paid well for a job acceptably done. And come publication day the extra press over the “false” version will just drive the fans to ever greater frenzies.

72. Life
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:44 am

    go eat an entire apple pie, suck. you and your sluggard mom what lives in a sink whole. For you are American Scourge. Die, cancer.

73. Andrew
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am

    Mike:

    This does have everything to do with free speech. If the government has laws in place which make it possible for me to silence you, the government is involved. Private entities cannot coerce one another into silence without either the use of force, or the backing of government (which provides the force).

    Furthermore our copyright laws are not in the form of civil commonlaw, they’ve mostly been codified by various bills (Copyright act of 1976, DMCA etc)

    “Free speech rights are only relevant to commentary on gov’t, not civil matters”

    Did you event think about this before you wrote it? Seriously, wake up and get a clue.

    A free press is the primary goal of the 1st amendment, and our absurd copyright laws surely fly in the face of that goal.

74. Jeff
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 9:59 am

    Greg, laugh all you want. However reproducing copyright material for educational or journalistic purposes is in most instances considered “fair use” under US copyright law according to US Copyright Law Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc.....-000-.html

    Major corporations, including Scholastic use these copyright laws to steal intellectual property from those that don’t have the resources to protect themselves every day. Save the tears and violins, the corporations and their shills will get no sympathy from me. The law cuts both ways.

75. Rob
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:00 am

    I am pretty sure that the person who sent that message was just an armchair lawyer who thought it would be funny to send everyone a takedown notice.

    I doubt that you have broken any laws by mentioning that a leak has occurred.

76. Nirav
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:04 am

    kudos to techcrunch

77. sunflower
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:06 am

    So it’s on Bit Torrent? That would really ruin the reading experience for me personally. Who wants to read a book on a computer, even on our UXGA screen ( >1080i )?

    We’ll pick the book up the first day it’s available. I don’t believe the release on bit torrent is really going to have much impact on sales, accept to possibly raise them! Did the publisher release it?

78. Rob
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:08 am

    The Harry Potter book, the new 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0?

79. Chad
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Scholastic spent 20 million dollars on a security plan to protect this book from leaking. MOST of the reason they were awarded the publishing rights is the promised security plan they put on the table.

    You have to admit they’ve done a pretty good job considering it’s leaked only a couple of days before its release and some douchebag at a bookstore probably did it.

    You’re a special kind of stupid if you don’t think they’re going to do everything in their power to continue with the security plan. Regardless of whether or not this is the last book in the series, they want the rights to whatever JK Rowling comes up with next.

80. Ben
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am

    1) this is not a free speech issue. The government is not compelling anyone to not speak, a private entity is asking (albeit a threat) another private entity to not speak. Therefore this is not free speech AT ALL. The arguments being made about copyright and free speech are ridiculous.
    2) Quoting Andrew “A free press is the primary goal of the 1st amendment, and our absurd copyright laws surely fly in the face of that goal.” What obsurd copyright law? That Scholastic wants to protect it’s property? What if it was your hard work? How would you feel? It is completely irrelevant how rich they are or what type of reader is going to bit torrent. They need to protect their rights as much as possible.
    3) This isn’t shoot the messanger, TechCrunch is an appropriate party. If you resell stolen merchandise that you know is stolen you should be liable. Another example: If your house had a broken door and I stood outside and yelled “HEY EVERYONE, STEAL FROM THIS HOUSE. THEY HAVE COOL STUFF WITH NO SECURITY” You would have a cause of action.
    My advice: Grow up and stop thinking that you have a right to steal or a right to tell people how to steal for whatever reason you have.

81. Danny
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Any hardcore HP fan is gonna download it if they know the method how to. But any hardcore HP fan is still gonna go buy the book. I know I am.

82. Doug Lay
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am

    Jeff D:

    I’m afraid I still have to disagree with you. Techcrunch was reporting news related to a major political issue of the day. I see this as unquestionably a free speech issue.

    I think your view of free speech as limited to political matters is too narrow, but it’s positively expansive compared to the view the view of “MIke” in Post 70, who sez:

    “Free speech rights are only relevant to commentary on gov’t, not civil matters.”

    So corporations can muzzle you whenever they like, so long as it’s not a “govenment” issue? What a whipped hound that guy is!

83. Robert
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:24 am

    LOL Dawn, I think it’s safe to say you are no longer under consideration for TechCrunch 20. I admire your willingness to sacrifice personal benefit for the sake of upholding standards. The web and the world would be a lot better place if there were more people like you, but unfortunately, you’re one in a million.

    Looks like you’re wanting to start a kind of Flickr for cartoons. I lot of our cubicles around here have cartoons all over them. Why not put them on our blogs? Great idea.

    You have balls, Lady. Look for an email from me when I have a chance to sit and write it, probably tomorrow. I have a few ideas to toss your way.

84. Ben
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:28 am

    Doug Lay:

    Free Speech has a strict legal definition. A corporation can muzzle you. They may be violating another law (civil or criminal) such as: Assault (if they scare you), False imprisonment (if they physically constrain you), but it is not a first amendemnt violation:
    Read it what part of the amendment is Scholastic breaching:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
    and the argument that copyright law in general violates it is destroyed by the fact that patent and copyright rights are protected by the constitution as well (art 1, section 8):
    Section. 8.
    The Congress shall have Power: …

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

85. Derek Scruggs
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:34 am

    This underscores that old media just doesn’t get it.

    While I agree in the larger sense, don’t forget that this will be one of the biggest selling books in the history of mankind, perhaps the biggest ever. I’m not sure that changes to their stance would materially impact that revenues of the book, though higher legal costs may have a marginal effect on profits. In the time we spend talking about this, JK Rowling’s publisher will earn enough to buy us all many times over.

86. Doug Lay
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:36 am

    Ben:

    Free speech is a set of laws and practices that relate to the First Amendment but are not constrained by the amendment’s language. I reject your “strict legal definition” completely and consider you a whipped hound.

87. Rob
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:36 am

    After reading through all the garbage comments, finally I get to the last one and its the only one that makes sense. Thank you Ben.

    Since when does posting a link and just telling everyone where to go find it differ? If your rational for being this being okay is that you didn’t post a link but just told everyone where to go, then your position is mighty weak.

    And to post #20 Ola. It doesn’t work to be nice and send somebody a nice letter. The way the DMCA law is written they HAVE to put all that language in there about under penalty of perjury and that they are acting under the authorization of the copyright owner, etc. Under the DMCA, technically if they leave some language out then the letter is useless and TC doesn’t have to follow it.

    Could people who want to talk or comment about these things related to the law actually know and understand what is going on before opening their mouth?

88. Ben
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am

    Doug Lay:

    Your argument is made week by calling me a “whipped hound.” It supports my assertion that you are a child (or at least acting like one). Free Speech comes from the first amendment. Several hundred years of Supreme Court jurisprudence suggests that free speech violations apply to corporations when they are acting as the government. A rare example is when a corporation owns a town (popular at the turn of the 20th century) and tries to keep religious groups off. But just as Microsoft can stop you from yellow “WINDOWS IS A BAD OPERATING SYSTEM” at their corporate headquarters (FYI: Windows is a bad operating system), they can protect their IP rights.

89. Greg
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am

    Jeff, last time I checked “fair use” doesn’t include copying entire works for personal gain.

90. Chad W
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:04 am

    Dawn-No offense, but using your troubled circumstances isn’t a very effective argument. What do you want people to do for you? You tell us all about the pain and trials you’re going through in life. While I genuinely feel sorry for you in your hurt, using those circumstances against someone in an argument only causes frustration for both parties. If all you’re out for is a pity party go find a forum/consular who can help you deal with your issues. TechCrunch isn’t about sympathy for its users.
    –
    TechCrunch was/is reporting on news-current issues of the day in the technology world. There is no rule/law against this. I understand the point people are trying to make, but TechCrunch is in no way responsible for money losses etc…

91. Harry Writer
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am

    From: “Fudge, Cornelius”
    Date: July 17, 2007 6:20:15 PM PDT
    To: Michael Arrington
    Cc: “Scrimgeour, Rufus”
    Subject: Notice of Infringement by the Magical Office of Rights Enforcement, regarding the work of Mrs. J.K. Rowling, Witch.

    Dear 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 biography and owner of copyright rights therein, and Flourish and Blotts, exclusive publisher of the Harry Potter biography, including without limitation the cover and all other art incorporated therein (collectively, “IP Elves”). I have a good faith belief that the materials identified below are not authorized by the IP Elves, its agent, or the law and therefore infringe the IP Elves’ rights according to the laws set forth by the Ministry of Magic and the Wizengamot.

    Please act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material or items claimed to be infringing. As the use of the Obliviate and other memory modification charms has not being sufficient, the application of Reductor charms is authorized. An Auror can be made available to you on request to remove the enchanted spider on your “web site.”

    I may be contacted at the address below via owl, or by use of the Wizard Wireless Network. Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter.

    Sincerely,
    Cornelius Fudge, DoM
    Counsel to the Minister of Magic
    Ministry of Magic, London, England

    Infringing Materials (infringement of copyright, including publication, duplication and distribution rights) present on the “web site”:

    http://www.techcrunch.com/2007.....ittorrent/

92. Matt
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:07 am

    Unfortunately a lot of the people downloading this on the internet also have the intent to ruin the book for others. This happened to me on an internet forum I frequent. Some ass decided to post with huge red bold letters plot spoilers. It should be taken down so annoying stuff like that can’t happen.

93. blake
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:08 am

    Good for you, it’s always good to see the press standing up against media companies threating lawsuits.

94. hamNeggs!
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am

    POTTER LIVES ! I Reads it all !

95. Harry Biter
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:33 am

    From : “Riddle, Tom ”
    Date : July 18, 2007 3:32 AM PDT
    To : Rufus Scrimgeour
    Cc : “Snape, Severus ”
    Subject : Bugger off, muggle lover

    Y0u R in my P0w3r Muggl3 l0v3r.

    s1nc3r3ly,

    L0Rd V0ld3M0rT

96. anna
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 11:46 am

    all these leaks did was drum up more hype, interest and sales. i read a bunch of spoilers, and now i’m more curious then ever to get the book on my own and find out what really happens.

97. phil
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    Trying to censor things on the internet has two possible outcomes.
    1) It gets *more* popular because people’s curiosity will lead them to see for themselves.
    2) It goes underground and is even harder to stop.

    Neither of these goals suits the publisher so one can only wonder why they just dont ‘get’ the internet?

98. Jeremy Herbel
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    Can someone please help me here, because I can’t tell if I’m missing something or if there are just a bunch of idiots here. First, the obvious one of people saying that these posts somehow spoiled something, Duncan is absolutely blameless here as the only detail the post gave was that the book existed (which I don’t think is a spoiler, but I could be wrong).
    As for the takedown, as the publisher they have to protect their copyright, but I’m not sure if having media outlets that reported the existence of infringing content is really the way to do this. I’m not an expert here, but I’m thinking that the only potential evil TC did was post a sample image, and say to search The Pirate Bay to find it. I can see where a normal human being wouldn’t consider this infringement, but remember that lawyers aren’t actually normal humans.
    Lastly, to the few that implied that TC shouldn’t have reported on this because it isn’t “real news,” you people are just idiots. Reporting that what is likely the most anticipated piece of print this year being posted on the internet before it is released is something I would say is news. We have become accustomed to seeing this happen with movies and music, but with such a highly guarded piece of written material, it is certainly worth reporting.

99. Dawn
    

    July 19th, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    @Chad W - You’re totally misreading my post. Mike dismissed me as somebody who needs to “suck up and deal with this,” as if I don’t have a valid intellectual argument but am merely working off irrational emotion, and then he went on to lecture me about what a “cold, dark, brutal world” it is, as if I’ve never known hardship and couldn’t handle it if I did. So I pointed out how wrong his assumption about me is. The fact is, I don’t need nor want pity, and I don’t have “issues,” thank you very much. I happen to be a very intelligent and very strong woman and Mike’s twisted assessment of my opinions was insulting, sexist, condescending, and intellectually lazy, and I have every right to call him on it.

    @Robert Thank you for your kind words. Frankly, I don’t think I deserve them because I don’t believe I’m taking on that much risk. I know that Mike Arrington is sincere in his passion for free speech, as am I, so I don’t believe he would be so hypocritical as to retaliate against me for exercising my own free speech. Nobody is going to agree on everything and debate is healthy. I wouldn’t sell Mike or TechCrunch that short, even though I’m not pleased with the way they’ve handled this one issue.

    I’ll be happy to get your email. Thanks for taking the time.

100. bdb
     

     July 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

     Pls let us know when the movie is up. I wouldn’t read JKR’s poor excuse for prose for 100 bucks.

101. Ben
     

     July 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

     Jeremy Herbal:
     I agree that this is real news.
     On the takedown issue:
     I am an attorney, so I guess I’m not a “normal human” hahahah LOL. But in all seriousness, it’s an issue of incitement and encouragement. TC told readers how to infringe the copyright possibly making them a contributory infringer. It’s not the strongest case in the world, but it has some legitimacy in my mind. Telling someone how to commit a crime can be seen as incitement or encouragement. If not for TC, many people would not know how to get the infringing material.

102. Kevin
     

     July 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm

     I don’t see why Scholastic is trying so hard to silence people. If they are concerned about their book being leaked, go after the source, not the messenger. There is no reason for hostile litigation against a news outlet for reporting the news. I don’t see why TechCrunch wouldn’t be protected by freedom of the press, their news was not offensive or slander.

     The picture they have of the copyrighted work should be considered fair use.

     If I were TechCrunch, I would just move my servers off-shore.

     I think that is where everything is going.

     SoundExchange wants absurd royalties for Internet Radio; Internet Radio is moving out of the USA to servers where SoundExchange wont get royalties.

     RIAA wants DRM on all of their music preventing fair use; people will get non-drm music outside of the USA.

     HD-DVD wanted to silence the news about its code being broken; now everyone knows the code.

     The point is, stop pissing people off. I am not going to buy the Harry Potter book just on the principle of not giving scholastic business because of how childish they are acting. Who is really going to read an entire book from jpegs . I know I for one wouldn’t.

103. Jeremy Herbel
     

     July 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

     @Ben
     Thanks for the response. You confirmed my guess about where the infringement could be. It is one of those cases where I personally don’t agree with it, but I can understand where they are coming from.

     Oh, and I stand by what I said. I’ve got enough lawyer friends to know you people aren’t normal.

104. Sane One
     

     July 19th, 2007 at 12:45 pm

     A bunch of MORONS on this thread who seem to want to play LAWYER on TV. Christ! Do any of you have a clue about Copyright law? A page of a protected work was displayed on the site. There was no right to display it… it was stolen!

     Get a clue or get a JD… but shut up already.

105. Rob
     

     July 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

     Although I agree with the fact that companies need to try and evolve WITH the internet it is totally asinine to honestly believe that companies should just deal with piracy because they can’t stop it. That is the worst logic I hav