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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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…

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

THE WHITE RACE REIGNS SUPREME!

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.

“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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

kudos to techcrunch

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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;

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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…

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/

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.

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

POTTER LIVES ! I Reads it all !

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

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.

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?

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.

@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.

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