> The only offense so far is: the PDF was hosted on Times servers
This is the entire offence. We're not talking about lifting a few paragraphs here, it's a pixel-perfect reproduction of a document with multiple overlapping copyrights, none of which the Times had permission to use.
My point was that the one thing you can take issue with is very likely "fair use".
I also believe that if the author has a legitimate claim it doesn't take 30 paragraphs to make a case.
Did you read it through? It took me a few reads to figure out the specifics of what he was talking about.
I'm guessing that the view by people here is that the NYTimes took an the Article and published it standalone, by itself, as they would one of their owns, without attribution.
That wasn't the case.
The NYT wrote an article, referenced the one in the PDF, and provided a copy of the PDF (of an old black/white scan) as context/background.
I understand the point you are trying to make - but the devil is in the details.
I don't think a Article and a Book can be properly compared. I also suspect that Harry Potter won't be out of print (digitally or otherwise), and as of now has a clear copyright holder to which you could ask (likes like original Times article includes interview with original author and may have their consent for what thats worth).
Each case is on its merits, and this is far from clear-cut. It is my opinion that this is very well fair use but there are plenty of opposing view-points here.
This is the entire offence. We're not talking about lifting a few paragraphs here, it's a pixel-perfect reproduction of a document with multiple overlapping copyrights, none of which the Times had permission to use.