The hundreds of websites and blogs that either included the stolen pages or linked to them didn't have to do so, any more than I would have to help a thief fence his stolen goods just because he asked me to. But so many sites did that it became impossible for the book's publishers to stop the eagerly awaited fad novel from circulating on the web illegally. Initially Scholastic initiated court action against www.gaiaonline.com, one of the first sites to post the book, to force it to take down the material, but links popped up everywhere. It had been sent to BitTorrent, with its multiple sites, and there was no stopping the leaks.

Helping the process along was the completely irresponsible and indefensible attitude of many bloggers, of which this excerpt, from a website called "zedurl," is typical:

We first got wind of this when two torrents of the book appeared on Demonoid.com. They became immensely popular with over a 1000 leechers and seeders each. But after some time were removed by either the uploader, or more likely, the moderators, in a move to avoid the attention of bloodthirsty publishers.

Bloodthirsty publishers! A company pays to publish a book, spends a great deal of money on promotion and distribution, has employees, stockholders and partners depending on the success of the venture, and its attempts to prevent a bunch of spoiled and arrogant web-jockeys from giving away their product (which millions had paid for in advance) for nothing makes it bloodthirsty! Such is the state of ethical reasoning in the blogosphere.

Far more indignation was expressed there about how mean it was for the web-leakers to spoil the surprises in the final Potter saga, but virtually none at the far more serious matter of theft. There has been far too much hand-wringing over this issue. Yes, spoiling the surprise of an eagerly anticipated book's ending is inconsiderate, but the internet isn't exactly a loudspeaker: if someone doesn't want to read the ending prematurely, he or she should stay away from the links to the purloined book. Reviewers, critics, chatty friends and loud strangers are always threats to prematurely divulge facts about books, movies and that big game you saved on TiVo. They should definitely respect the desires of others, but the harm to a Harry Potter fan who has been prematurely told that Harry is turned into a worm and eaten by a hungry trout (Oops! Sorry!) just isn't near the magnitude of the harm to a book's author and publisher when it is given away by cyber-creeps.

Copyright holders in other media are partially at fault for the blasé attitude toward copyright theft. The owners of film and video clips have mostly allowed YouTube and other sites to post their property free of charge, because it can be good promotion and because the clips seem too trivial to fight over. But they have created a true slippery slope. A majority of on-line users under 30 think they should be able to share music files without paying the artists or record companies, and are used to downloading videos without any interference. Why would they regard downloading a novel differently? The developing ethical culture on the web is that right is whatever you have the technology to do and get away with.

When ethics are overwhelmed by self-centered and material considerations ("Who cares who owns it? I want it for nothing!"), it is time for the law to step in. Congress needs to pass strict legislation dictating heavy fines, restitution, and the elimination of web sites for willfully publishing substantial copyrighted material, such as books and movies, while it is being actively marketed and sold.

And if they ever apprehend the one who leaked the book, the law should deal harshly with him as well. I just hope it wasn't Voldemort.